Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o' Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING

East-West Trade

Mr. Willey: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give a list of the particular restrictions imposed on the supply of large merchant vessels to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Poland.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): The shipping controls form part of the international lists and, on the subject of publication, I can add nothing to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, said in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) on 1st June.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable interest in this question, and that the wider the knowledge is spread the better it will be as far as our own shipbuilding industry is concerned?

Mr. Thomas: I certainly realise how widespread is the interest in this question, but the present moment, when the lists are under review, would not be a good time to publish them.

Mr. Shinwell: How long does the right hon. Gentleman propose to continue these restrictions on the supply of British merchant vessels to the Soviet Union when other countries associated with us in many other respects are supplying these vessels?

Mr. Thomas: That is really a question for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that all Departments of

the Government interested in shipbuilding and shipping are most anxious to reach a decision as quickly as possible. We are doing everything we can to shorten the time.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the First Lord accurate in saying that it is the responsibility of the Board of Trade? I always understood that the Admiralty advised the Board of Trade.

Mr. Thomas: If the right hon. Gentleman looks back on Questions and answers in the House, he will find that the President of the Board of Trade is the Minister principally authorised to make statements.

Mr. P. Williams: Is it not a fact that shipbuilders already know the restrictions which exists?

Mr. Hoy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I attempted to put down a Question to the President of the Board of Trade I was told that it was a matter for the Admiralty? Is he now in a position to state whether it is possible for British shipbuilders to accept orders for vessels similar to that which has been accepted by Holland in agreement with Russia in a business exchange?

Mr. Thomas: If the Question was transferred to the Admiralty, it was one specifically for the Admiralty to deal with rather than concerning the general question of East-West trade, for which the Board of Trade is responsible. Any requests from the shipbuilding industry to build ships such as that which the hon. Member says is being built by Holland will certainly be considered by the authorities, although I cannot promise what the answer will be.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry to pursue this, but it is most important from the standpoint of British shipping interests. Can the First Lord say whether very soon we shall have the policy of the Government firmly stated?

Mr. Thomas: I think it will be very soon. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are at present in consultation with other nations—we do not stand alone on this—but, as far as this country is concerned, the sooner the Government can make a statement the happier we will be.

Employment

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the adverse conditions that are still continuing to afflict the British shipbuilding and shiprepairing industry; and if he will specify the steps he is taking to resolve those adverse conditions and to maintain employment in that industry.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The main problem confronting the shipbuilding industry has been the shortage of steel plate, but this has now been successfully overcome. The immediate outlook for the industry is good, although new orders will be needed soon. Employment in the industry is now increasing slightly. With regard to the shiprepairing industry, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Civil Lord gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on 16th June.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that, as compared with other nations, Britain is in grave danger of losing her traditional, pre-eminent place in the shipbuilding world, and will the right hon. Gentleman begin inquiries to find the cause with a view to eradicating it?

Mr. Thomas: I am well aware that we are moving away from the abnormal conditions in the immediate post-war years, and I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we do not view the present position with any complacency whatever. We make every kind of inquiry to find out how the position can be improved. I would say that the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry has got nearly 2 million tons under construction and 3 million tons still to be laid down. That represents two to three years' work, and, although I am not being complacent about the matter, I think the position is not as bad as is sometimes made out.

Mr. Hughes: What about the position in the Scottish yards?

Mr. Gower: In view of the very competitive conditions with which we have been faced during the last year or so, is it not a fact that under this Government we have done far better in this respect as in other respects than we had any reason to anticipate in 1951?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Dartmouth College (Fees)

Mr. Crouch: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will make arrangements that, under the new arrangements of entry and training to come into force at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, next year which will be parallel to the entry and training of cadets at Sandhurst and Cranwell, parents of naval cadets will no longer be called upon to pay term fees, subject to a means test.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Yes, Sir. No payments will be required from the parents of cadets who enter Dartmouth College under the new system.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this announcement is very welcome? I feel sure that in many homes a silent "Thank you" will be said to him for making this concession, which gives to the parents of naval cadets the same benefits as are given to the parents of cadets who enter the other Services. This is another example of my right hon. Friend's excellent administration.

Mr. Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend.

Dilutees

Mr. R. Bell: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he will apply to Admiralty civilian employees, at present classed as dilutees, treatment in relation to merit pay and establishment similar to that provided by the agreement between the Air Ministry and the Amalgamated Engineering Union.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Dilutees employed by the Admiralty already receive treatment for establishment comparable with that given to Air Ministry dilutees. Merit pay for Admiralty craft grades including dilutees is regulated by an agreement negotiated on the Shipbuilding Trades Joint Council on which the Amalgamated Engineering Union is only one of many unions represented. This agreement is at present under review.

Mr. Bell: Will my right hon. Friend press forward this review, because a substantial concession has recently been made to Air Ministry employees and the delay is making this a legitimate grievance on the part of Admiralty employees?

Mr. Thomas: We certainly shall not waste time in pursuing this matter.

Mr. Hobson: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that he is going to meet representatives of the unions on this matter, and is he aware that it concerns the craft unions, of which the Amalgamated Engineering Union is the largest?

Mr. Thomas: Yes. Anybody interested in this matter will be consulted as well as the main unions.

Mr. R. Bell: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the wartime temporary relaxation agreement with the Amalgamated Engineering Union is being enforced at Admiralty establishments in South Buckinghamshire, but is not being applied in private engineering industry in that area; and whether he will dispel the resulting anomaly and injustice by arranging for equality of treatment for all employees in the Admiralty establishments.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The wartime dilution agreement between the Admiralty and the Amalgamated Engineering Union is still in force and the employment of dilutees registered with that union must therefore continue to be governed by it. Any proposals for a revision of the agreement which the Amalgamated Engineering Union may put forward will, of course, be carefully considered.

Mr. Bell: But while the Admiralty naturally feels bound by this agreement, when my right hon. Friend is engaging in negotiations with the Amalgamated Engineering Union will he take into account the fact that in private employment in the area the agreement is no longer in operation?

Mr. Thomas: I am aware of what my hon. Friend says, but this is a very complex subject for Parliamentary Question and answer. I am quite prepared to discuss it with my hon. Friend if he wishes to do so.

Helicopters

Mr. Dodds: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many helicopters and what types are in service with the Royal Navy; and what orders have been placed to increase the helicopter strength.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: There are approximately 100 helicopters in service in the Royal Navy, some of which are American types supplied under the Mutual Defence Assistance Programme. The types in service are the Dragonfly, Hiller and Whirlwind. Approximately another 100 helicopters, all of them British, are on order for the Royal Navy.

Mr. Dodds: In congratulating the First Lord of the Admiralty on the outstanding enterprise of his Department in pioneering helicopters, may I ask him to bear in mind that the United States Navy is proposing to hand over an aircraft carrier for helicopters for assault purposes, and will he give careful consideration to this aspect of the matter?

Mr. Thomas: Yes. I should like to thank the hon. Member for what he said about my Department. We have shown intense interest in helicopters from the start, and I shall certainly bear in mind what he tells me about the American aircraft carrier.

Staff Increases

Mr. Renton: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the number of civil servants in his Department increased from 33,652 to 33,788 between 1st January and 1st April, 1954.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to my reply on 23rd June to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall).

Mr. Renton: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether there is an upper limit to the continuous expansion that has gone on in the Admiralty staff during the past 12 months and which has now reached nearly 34,000?

Mr. Thomas: We certainly have a ceiling put upon Admiralty employment as a whole by the Treasury, and we are below that ceiling. But, as I warned my hon. and learned Friend some weeks ago when he asked me a Question on the subject, we have had difficulty in recruitment for particular people. These difficulties are now eased and we are getting the men to keep pace with the advance in research and development. My hon. and learned Friend will be glad to know that, while the numbers here are increased, the numbers elsewhere are being reduced.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the First Lord remember the strictures he used to pass on his predecessors when similar replies were given, and, when he recalls that, does it ever bring a blush to his cheek?

Mr. Thomas: Perhaps it would bring many blushes if the numbers in the Admiralty as a whole were not below the ceiling set for us by the Treasury.

Instructor Lieutenants (Promotion)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the proposals for improving the promotion prospects of Instructor Lieutenants, formerly Schoolmasters R.N.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Yes, Sir. The conditions of service of these officers have now been very carefully reviewed, and it has been decided to allow a further 26 selective promotions to Instructor Lieutenant-Commander, in addition to those permissible under the scheme of 1946.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged for that statement, which will be greeted with modified rapture, but there will be 45 of these officers who originally were under the expectation of being promoted and who will not now be promoted. Is it not a fact that the First Lord can expect continued agitation from that group?

Mr. Thomas: That is possible. I thank the hon. Member for his modified congratulations, and I think that this is a big step in the right direction.

Personal Case

Sir R. Acland: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has now been able to postpone the overseas posting of a stoker petty officer, particulars of whose case have been sent to him in writing.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: No, Sir. My hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has already informed the hon. Member that the circumstances of this case do not justify postponement of draft.

Sir R. Acland: Why is there not in the Navy any provision comparable to that of Memorandum 10 of January, 1954, in the

R.A.F., whereby the R.A.F. men are entitled to postponement of overseas posting within three months of the date on which their wives are expecting the birth of a baby?

Mr. Thomas: I would remind the hon. Member that the drafting conditions in the Navy are considerably more difficult than in the R.A.F. There is always a long chain of drafting and, if alterations are made, it causes hardship elsewhere. We have done our best to modify the conditions. This case refers to a prospective confinement. Drafting is delayed if complications are expected, or if arrangement cannot be made for the wife and family to be looked after by other people during the confinement.

Admiral Sir Dudley North (Dismissal)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Stokes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what ships were under the command of Admiral Sir Dudley North on 9th September, 1940.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order. I do not want to block the right hon. Gentleman's Question on policy grounds, but I want to deal with a matter from the procedural point of view. Is there any limit to the number of Questions which can be put down week-by-week relating to the past and, sometimes, the distant past? Ought these Questions not to deal with current administration, or are we all entitled to put down Questions about past disputes; in which case I might have one or two about my family connections almost 100 years ago?

Mr. Speaker: Each Question is treated on its merits. This run of Questions started with a request to the First Lord for an inquiry, and that is a matter in the present.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The answer to the Question is: Nine destroyers and a number of smaller ships. In addition, in an emergency, as Flag Officer Commanding, North Atlantic, the senior officer at Gibraltar, Admiral North could have called on the services of Her Majesty's Ship "Renown" should he have considered this necessary.

Mr. Stokes: May I take it from that answer that it would be recognised that Admiral North would be in close and continual contact with Admiral Somerville?

Mr. Thomas: Yes. Admiral North was the senior commanding officer there.

Mr. Stokes: Is that really so? Was not Force H an independent force with a great deal of interference from the Minister of Defence at the time?

Mr. Thomas: I would point out that Admiral North in his own evidence admits he had power over "Renown" and he admits that in an emergency he would not have hesitated to order her to sea if desirable. When Admiral Somerville wished to put back "Renown" to two hours steaming he went to Admiral North for approval, which was given by him.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not a fact that Admiral North had only nine ancient destroyers under his command and he was ashore while Admiral Sir James Somerville had a powerful battleship and other powerful units with him? Does the First Lord really mean that Admiral North was the superior officer?

Mr. Thomas: He was the superior officer, as he himself says in two quotations that I read to the House.

Mr. Stokes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what messages were received by the Admiralty from Admiral North between 0008 hours on 11th September, 1940, and the passage of the French ships through the Straits of Gibraltar; and at what times.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Two, Sir. One, timed 0617, reported that H.M.S. "Hotspur" had sighted six ships moving West at high speed and that she had been directed to take no action. This signal was received in Admiralty at 0740. The other, timed 0711, and repeated to Flag Officer, Force H, reported Admiral North's intention to keep in touch with these ships by air and to report their probable destination. It reached Admiralty at 0742.

Mr. Stokes: Does the First Lord really mean that the signal sent at 0215 by Admiral North to "Hotspur" was never sent to the Admiralty, and that instructions for the "Renown" to be at one

hour's steam at 0617 on that day were also not known to the Admiralty? Further, is it not a fact that Admirals North and Somerville were in continuous consultation long before this, and that the Admiralty should have known all about it two days before but, owing to the incompetence of the people here, they ignored the signals?

Mr. Thomas: The Admiralty has never disputed that the signals were mishandled at the Admiralty, and the officer in charge was relieved of his post. The case against Admiral North was that he did not take any steps to bring his ships to the necessary state of readiness to carry out any instructions which might be sent to him. It was for that reason that he was considered to be no longer fit to remain at his post.

Mr. Stokes: Does the First Lord really say that there was no instruction to "Renown" at 0617 to be at one hour's steam? Does he really say that is so? If so, he should look at his instructions again.

Mr. Thomas: My information is that Admiral Somerville got a signal from "Hotspur" on his own and put "Renown" at one hour's steam.

Mr. Stokes: rose—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Oh!

Mr. Stokes: I want to go on. I could not care less about the noble Lord. What I want to know is this: Does the First Lord really suggest that Admirals North and Somerville were divorced from one another? Has he not read the accounts given by staff officers of what really happened that night—that they were in continuous consultation ever since the morning of 9th September, and knew exactly what was going on, and knew what one another was doing? Does the First Lord deny that?

Mr. Thomas: I have no wish to deny that both Admiral North and Admiral Somerville were in constant touch with each other, but, as I said at the beginning of this long series of questions, Admiral North did not pass on the signal that he received from the Naval Attaché just after midnight until 8 o'clock the following morning.

Mr. Stokes: That is not true, it is a lie.

Hon. Members: Order, Order.

Mr. Thomas: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the facts of this case are not in dispute, that they never have been in dispute, and that I have answered accurately every question he has put.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Thomas: I shall be delighted to deal with it.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Stokes: I withdraw that it is a lie; but it is completely untrue.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Helicopters

Mr. Dodds: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what plans have been made to use helicopters for the mail services.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): There are no immediate plans for sending mail by helicopter: but the Post Office has already made comprehensive experiments with these aircraft. As my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation said, in the course of an Adjournment debate on 15th June, the Post Office will be quick to consider using helicopters as soon as there is a reasonable prospect of essential postal requirements being met. These are not only the acceleration of the mail at reasonable cost but also with a high standard of regularity in all weather conditions, especially as so much of the mail has to be moved during the night.

Mr. Dodds: Whilst appreciating that the Post Office has made experiments, does not the Assistant Postmaster-General also appreciate that experiments need to continue if success is to be gained? Is he aware that for three years in America a successful all-the-year round postal service has been carried out by helicopters, and would he not consider it as a possible technique for reducing the number of mailbag robberies in this country?

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the conditions in America, where they have vast distances

to cover, are quite different from here, where so much of the mail goes by night and where the weather conditions would not make the use of helicopters a practical proposition.

Captain Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the First Lord of the Admiralty has said that they propose to have 200 helicopters flying over water, so why should he not experiment with the use of helicopters for delivering mail on the West Coast of Scotland?

Mr. Gammans: We have carried out experiments and have found that the cost is absolutely prohibitive, and in view of the fact that so much of the mail in this relatively small country goes by night, we cannot see that there would be any saving in efficiency.

Sir R. Acland: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is important that people should not be kept awake all night, because otherwise they will not be able to read the letters when the helicopters bring them?

International Reply Coupons

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why, and acting on what advice from outside his Department, he decided to charge 9d. for the International Reply Coupon of the Universal Postal Union, exchangeable in any country for a postage stamp representing the amount of postage for an ordinary single-rate letter destined for a foreign country.

Mr. Gammans: Ninepence is the equivalent in sterling of 32 gold centimes, the minimum charge permitted by the Universal Postal Convention.

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether, in order to foster the spirit of world community desired by Her Majesty's Government, he will consider asking his representative on the Universal Postal Union to propose the issue of a world stamp for identical use in all countries of the value of an ordinary single-rate letter destined for a foreign country and exchangeable for the present International Reply Coupon.

Mr. Gammans: Whilst sympathising with the motives of the hon. Member, I feel that the International Reply Coupon already fulfils all practical needs and that


I should not therefore be justified in taking the initiative on the lines suggested.

Mr. Craddock: In view of our affiliations with the Universal Postal Union, and the part we play in U.N.O., would it not be a good thing to support the idea of a world stamp, which might be regarded in some quarters as a desirable international step?

Mr. Gammans: It was the British who many years ago were responsible for the International Reply Coupon, and we feel that it has met all the needs up to the present time.

Christ Church Green, Victoria Street

Sir H. Williams: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how much of Christ Church Green. Victoria Street, S.W.1, will be occupied by the new post office; and what garage accommodation will be provided.

Mr. Gammans: Only the site of the disused church and vicarage adjoining Christ Church Green will be occupied by the proposed new telephone exchange and public post office. There will be no garage.

Sir H. Williams: Why is it that in this most congested area a new post office has been set up by the State with no garage accommodation, despite the fact that less than 200 yards away two private buildings have been put up, both of which would provide ample accommodation? Is it not time that the State stood up to its responsibilities in ridding the streets of vehicles?

Mr. Gammans: This office will not be a sorting office and therefore there will be no need for a garage. The ground floor of the building will be used for a public post office.

Mr. Hastings: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the valuable open space which is used so much at the present time will not be built upon in this new venture?

Mr. Gammans: I think that I can give the hon. Member that assurance. The only space to be built on is that occupied by the derelict church and the vicarage which adjoins it.

Facilities, Brixton

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what progress has been made in providing an additional post office in Brixton.

Mr. Gammans: No one has replied to our successive advertisements for a sub-postmaster. It looks as if the only solution is to find larger premises for the existing Crown Office, and this we are trying to do.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: As the Minister now agrees that his efforts and mine to find a sub-postmaster to staff Brixton Road Post Office have proved ineffective, does he not think the best thing to do now would be to open another new Crown Office in the Brixton Road, especially as suitable premises happen to be available for it?

Mr. Gammans: No. I think the better way is to move the present Crown Office to a site which will serve the two areas with which the hon. and gallant Member is concerned.

Mr. Mellish: Would it not be a good idea for the Assistant Postmaster-General to apply for this job as it is about the only one he could do competently?

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Interference, Brighton

Mr. Teeling: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what action, other than sending forms to fill up, the head postmaster at Brighton has taken concerning the complaints of over 50 householders on and around the Brangwyn Estates, Brighton, about television interference; how many times these householders have been asked to fill in forms in the past few months; and what he will do to stop the interference.

Mr. Gammans: As I have explained in a recent letter to my hon. Friend, there must be some misunderstanding. I am advised that the television signal is good, and very few complaints are received from the estate. As regards filling up of forms, all that has been done is to ask certain of the householders, who had complained, to keep the usual two week record to assist in tracing interference. Only one has so far supplied the information; I am, however, arranging for the


engineers to make further tests on the estate.

Mr. Teeling: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the last two or three days, I have had seven letters and a petition signed by no fewer than 14 people in the district to say that they are suffering from this problem, and would he, therefore, make a determined effort that the engineers shall study this matter and not leave it to the ordinary Post Office officials, who carry out their work during the ordinary hours of the day and not necessarily during the hours when television is on?

Mr. Gammans: As there has been some conflict of testimony as to the conditions, I have arranged for the engineers to go on to the Estate again.

Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the cause of this interference is largely due to helicopters hovering about?

Welsh Home Service

Mr. G. Roberts: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why the Principality of Wales, and especially the province of Gwynedd, continues to be badly served in the matter of reception of the Welsh Home Service: and what action he contemplates to remedy the position.

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that the reception of the Welsh Home Service in Anglesey continues to be unsatisfactory; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the Welsh people can hear their own programme.

Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C. know that in some parts of Wales and Anglesey reception of the Welsh Home Service is not satisfactory. It is not possible to make any major improvement because no new stations operating on the present medium wave length can be fitted in, and because no additional medium wave lengths are available. As the hon. Members know, the B.B.C. hope that very high frequency broadcasting may in the long run be the answer to our problems here.

Mr. Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a pressing problem in Wales, where some hundreds of thousands of Welsh people are unable to receive the only programme in which they are really interested, that this is a special case calling for special action, that talk about very

high frequency modulation is of no use, and that he should expend on this pressing Welsh problem one-tenth of the energy which is most regrettably used up in promoting commercial television?

Mr. Gammans: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. There are no available wave lengths which can be allotted for this part of Wales. The solution, the B.B.C. are convinced, lies in the direction of very high frequency.

Mr. Roberts: Could not the hon. Gentleman press forward with the provision of subordinate transmitters or boosters along the coasts of Wales? It has been tried previously, I think, with some substantial improvement. Is anything being done about this position, because it is getting worse every month?

Mr. Gammans: It is not a question of nothing being done, but the proposal of the B.B.C. is to tackle this problem by the only method which they consider to be satisfactory, and that is by V.H.F.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Are we to understand, therefore, that this very important area is to be left completely unserved until the new scheme comes into operation?

Mr. Gammans: There will not be any dramatic improvement in the situation until the very high frequency stations come into operation.

County of Angus

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the results of the consultations that have taken place between the Angus Burgh Association and the British Broadcasting Corporation regarding problems of poor radio reception in the county.

Mr. Gammans: The British Broadcasting Corporation have informed me that they have told the Angus Burgh Association that they are aware of the unsatisfactory reception of the Scottish Home Service in the County of Angus, and that they have fully considered the needs of this area in drawing up proposals for development of very high frequency broadcasting. As hon. Members are aware, these proposals are at present being considered by my noble Friend.

Mr. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that reception of the Light Programme, particularly in the Dundee area,


is very bad and that the great majority of listeners cannot receive it? Will he not look into the question here, as in Wales, of providing booster stations now instead of pursuing the long-term policy of V.H.F. broadcasting?

Mr. Gammans: I am not a technician, but I am informed that booster stations will not help very much and that the real way to tackle the problem is by the provision of V.H.F. stations. I hope that it will not be long before I am in a position to make a statement on the development of V.H.F. broadcasting.

Band III

Mr. Hobson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what tests for television broadcasts have taken place on Band III; and on what channels.

Mr. Gammans: A number of radio manufacturers are carrying out experimental and development work in this band and the B.B.C. are also conducting tests. The tests have not been confined to specific channels.

Mr. Hobson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what channels have been allocated to the British Broadcasting Corporation on Band III.

Mr. Gammans: None, Sir. Full coverage of the B.B.C.'s present television programme is catered for in Band I. If, however, the hon. Member is referring to the possibility of the B.B.C. doing a second programme in Band III, I would remind him that the Corporation does not plan to start such a programme before 1957.

Mr. Hobson: Is it proposed to allocate two channels to the B.B.C. in Band III?

Mr. Gammans: A decision has to be reached yet as to whether the B.B.C. is to have a second programme.

Mr. H. Morrison: Are we to understand that, in order that this field may be monopolised by private interests, the Government may refuse the B.B.C. a second programme, which the B.B.C. offered to provide, an offer which completely demolishes the Government's idea that the B.B.C. is not willing to institute a competitive service?

Mr. Gammans: If the right hon. Gentleman puts his question slightly differently, I can give him a straight answer. The B.B.C. has put forward a 10-year development plan, which includes a second programme, but no decision has been taken yet as to whether that development plan is to be fully accepted.

Mr. Hobson: Why is the B.B.C. experimenting on Band III when it is proposed that, if the B.B.C. has a second programme, it will be broadcast on Band II?

Mr. Gammans: I think that the hon. Member is incorrect. If the B.B.C. does have a second programme it will be broadcast in Band III.

Mr. Hobson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what services it is proposed to remove from Band III.

Mr. Gammans: The land mobile services will need to move from Band III, and this would release two channels. Some of the other services listed in my reply of the 29th July, 1953, may also need to be moved, but the full extent of these moves can only be determined as television development proceeds.

Mr. Hobson: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that his decision is grossly unfair to those who are already using Band III and that it puts them to a great deal of unnecessary expenditure purely in order to have sponsored television?

Mr. Gammans: The two channels allotted to commercial television are two channels which are already available. As to mobile services, one of the conditions of the licences, which they fully understood when the licences were taken out, was that they might have to move from that Band.

Mr. Gibson: Is it not correct that these services have been promised other facilities in another Band?

Mr. Gammans: They would not be taken off the air.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Kiosks, Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to increase the allocation of


rural telephone kiosks; how many representations on this subject he has received from local authorities and other bodies; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gammans: We are providing more money this year for rural kiosks, but for the reasons given in the answer to my hon. Friend's Question on 9th December last, I cannot say whether we shall provide a greater number than last year. Representations are received from time to time but statistical records of these are not kept.

Mr. Gower: Will my hon. Friend note the expressed view of the Association of Welsh Rural Councils that the present number of these kiosks in Welsh rural areas is inadequate?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, I realise that, but the point is that, with the limited amount of capital expenditure at our disposal, we have to make a choice between erecting one rural kiosk and connecting 16 urban subscribers.

Barry

Mr. Gower: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applicants for telephones in the borough of Barry made their first applications more than four years ago and more than three years ago, respectively; and how these figures compare with the average figures for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Gammans: Fourteen applicants have been waiting between three and four years and 11 over four years. The position in Barry is rather better than the average for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gower: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephones are still outstanding in the area of the borough of Barry; how many were outstanding a year ago; and how many he anticipates may be satisfied during the next year.

Mr. Gammans: Two hundred and twenty-nine applications are now outstanding as compared with 315 just over a year ago. One hundred and sixty-four telephones were connected in the past 12 months, and I hope that we shall be able to increase this figure slightly in the current financial year.

Mr. Gower: While thanking my hon. Friend for that encouraging information,

may I ask whether he will pay particular attention to the needs of certain business applicants in the borough of Barry?

Midlothian and Peebles

Mr. Pryde: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephones in the Dalkeith district are at present before his Department.

Mr. Gammans: One hundred and six applications were outstanding at the 31st March, 1954.

Mr. Pryde: Does the Minister not consider that this part of Midlothian is most inadequately provided with telephone facilities?

Mr. Gammans: There is a shortage of telephones almost everywhere, and some places are worse off than others. The position is not worse in this area than it is on the average.

Mr. Pryde: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephones have been received by his Department from persons in the county of Midlothian during the years 1952 and 1953.

Mr. Gammans: Five thousand and sixty-six and 5,651, respectively, including 4,900 and 5,400 for Edinburgh. Six thousand, one hundred and fifty-eight telephones were supplied last year.

26. Mr. Pryde: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many public telephone kiosks were installed in the counties of Midlothian and Peebles in the years 1952 and 1953.

Mr. Gammans: Thirteen kiosks were installed in the county of Midlothian, including Edinburgh, and two in Peebles in each of these years.

Mr. Pryde: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at that rate it will take 150 years to provide Midlothian and Peebles with public telephones at 10-mile intervals?

Mr. Gammans: I trust that the hon. Member's figure does not represent the true position.

Mr. H. Morrison: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether all this backwardness in telephone installations, which conflicts


with the Government's declaration that everybody can get anything they want nowadays, is partly explained by the fact that the Government are squandering a lot of resources on commercial television?

Mr. Gammans: This Government have reduced the waiting list by over 100,000 in the last two years.

Mr. C. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that under a Socialist Government it would take 250 years?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Low-Flying Aircraft (Rugby)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the nuisance caused by low-flying aircraft over built-up areas in Rugby; and what steps he is taking to curb this contravention of regulations.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): As far as I know, there has been no low flying by Royal Air Force aircraft over Rugby. If the hon. Member has any particular incident in mind, perhaps he would let me have details?

Mr. Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this low flying by jets terrifies youngsters in my constituency? I can give him some information; will he take some action in the matter if and when I do so?

Mr. Ward: I would be very grateful for anything the hon. Member can tell me, but we have checked with the local police and they have received no complaint and seen no low flying.

Court of Inquiry, Wahnerheide

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement about the recent court of inquiry at Wahnerheide.

Mr. Foot: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement on the recent courts-martial proceedings at Wahn.

Mr. Ward: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) for bringing to my notice last November allegations of irregularities at the Royal Air Force Detention Unit, Wahnerheide. Exhaustive inquiries were put in hand at

once. As a result, disciplinary action has been taken against two officers; while seven non-commissioned officers have been convicted by court-martial.
After considering the findings of the court of inquiry set up by the Commander-in-Chief, Second Tactical Air Force, to examine the administration of the unit, we have decided to make several changes there. The proportion of senior non-commissioned officers has been increased and the staff chosen from older men with previous experience of this type of work. Arrangements have also been made to ensure closer supervision of the unit. My noble Friend considers that these measures should prevent any recurrence of these unfortunate incidents.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Minister aware that the events which took place at this detention barracks were a real shock to the public and did great harm to the good name of the Royal Air Force? Can he give a complete assurance that this is not likely to take place again? Was not the real trouble the lack of supervision, and can he say what punishments were awarded to the officers in charge?

Mr. Ward: Certainly we realise that these incidents were most unfortunate and did shock the public. We have done all we possibly could to bring those responsible to justice and to take every step to prevent a recurrence. The various sentences awarded to those convicted by court-martial I would rather send to the hon. Member.

Mr. Foot: Whilst thanking the Minister for the action he took in this case, may I ask if he does not think it would be proper to say a word of tribute to the aircraftman who took his courage in both hands and was responsible for revealing the whole of this appalling business, particularly in view of some reflections cast on him in the court-martial proceedings? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that sufficient action has been taken against the officers who were not on trial but who were really partially responsible for this horrible business?

Mr. Ward: On the first part of the supplementary question, of course we are very glad that this matter was brought to light. On the second part, there is no evidence whatever to warrant court-martial proceedings being taken against the two officers concerned. None of


the prisoners who gave evidence against the N.C.Os. indicated that the commandant or any other officer was conniving at the ill treatment, but disciplinary action has been taken against them because they were responsible for administration.

Mr. Foot: I think I did send evidence to the hon. Gentleman which does indicate that some of the officers were aware of some of the treatment meted out in the detention camp; has he that evidence? Would the hon. Gentleman also go a little further in paying tribute to the man who went into the detention camp and gained the evidence which exposed this horrible business as, if it were not for his courage, nothing would have been known about it? Surely a better tribute should be paid to him for the work he did for the whole of the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Ward: Certainly, but I think it is a pity that no complaint was made earlier when he was in the unit. There were regular visits made by medical officers, chaplains and so on, but no complaint was made until he had left the unit, although it might have been possible to stop it earlier.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that this aircraftman rendered a public service by doing what he did?

Mr. Ward: Yes, certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANALS (DANGER SPOTS)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement on the result of his discussions with the British Transport Commission on the danger to children arising from the Midland canals.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Consultation with the Chairman of the British Transport Commission has confirmed my previous conclusion that, since at many points the public have free access to canal banks by means of a towpath or right of way, the practical safeguards against danger to children lie in proper parental control, reinforced wherever possible by locally concerted action in which the

Commission will always be ready to cooperate.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister not aware that 21 children, from the ages of two to nine, have died in canals in the last two months in the Midlands? Will he not send someone to see these danger spots? Will he think again about this matter and attempt to do something?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am concerned about this matter, but I also recognise that generations of children in Britain have been successfully and safely brought up in villages alongside river banks, and we must keep a sense of proportion in these matters. I am certain that the real responsibility lies with the parents, whose duties in this matter are by no means lessened by public responsibility. I also recognise that in this case at Birmingham the British Transport Commission, my own divisional engineer and the local authorities have recently had a conference to see what action could be taken.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question of danger spots on the canals in the Midland areas has caused great public concern and conferences have been held in the Black Country? As he stated, I attended a conference last Friday in Birmingham—

Sir H. Williams: Did you fall into the canal?

Mr. Shurmer: Mind your own business.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must remember that he is addressing the Chair.

Mr. Shurmer: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker. A conference was called by the Lord Mayor in Birmingham and the officials of the right hon. Gentleman attended. I must say that they are trying to co-operate, but I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will help them all he can. It is not a question of conferferences, it is a question of danger spots which are there and which have been admitted, even by the chief constable, the Lord Mayor and officials in that area.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly help in every local case I can through the British Transport Commission, but it would be a great mistake to underrate the importance of the obligation imposed on parents in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDINBURGH—STIRLING ROAD (DIVERSION)

Sir I. Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will state the number of accidents which have occurred since the stopping-up, in June, 1952, of a portion of the Edinburgh—Stirling trunk road, A.9, adjoining Turnhouse Aerodrome and the consequent diversion of a heavy volume of traffic along a route which is both inadequate and unsuitable; and if he will now take immediate steps either to reopen or replace the stopped-up portion of A.9.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): Between 1st June, 1952, and 31st May, this year, three accidents have occurred in Eastfield Road and 18 at the junction of that road with the Glasgow—Edinburgh road. An improvement is about to be made at the junction, and this will, I hope, make conditions there much safer. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend has now agreed with the Secretary of State for Air that an alternative road in place of the stopped-up part of A.9 will be provided.

Sir I. Clark Hutchison: While thanking my hon. Friend for that information, may I ask if he can say when the work is likely to start on the new diversion road to which he has referred?

Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir. It is hoped that the improvement will start immediately.

Mr. Woodburn: In the interim, would it be possible for approval to be given to a road between Queensferry and Kirkliston which would be capable of taking off the main road a lot of traffic going through the village of Corstorphine which causes great dislocation in that village?

Mr. Molson: I will certainly consider that matter, but the representations received have been that no diversion would be satisfactory because a new road is required, and that is what it is now proposed to provide.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING (DANGEROUS CARGOES)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what measures are taken to ensure that men

of the Merchant Navy who undertake service in vessels in Far Eastern waters receive due warning and notification when such vessels are used to carry bombs and war materials as cargo.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No special measures are necessary, because the Master and officers of the ship are aware of the nature of the cargo to be carried. The Master is required by the law to see that the cargo is stowed safely, and my Department has issued rules about the carriage of explosives and other dangerous goods. I have received no complaint that these rules are not being complied with.

Mr. Irvine: Yes, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that vessels are chartered by French companies to carry American war material, which includes fragmentation bombs and detonators, to Indo-China? Would it not be reasonable to permit British merchant seamen the opportunity of contracting out of serving in vessels carrying such traffic, having regard to the risks both to them and to their dependants?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not unlawful for British shipowners to carry arms to the French in Indo-China, and I do not think that we should serve our wider interests by attempting to persuade them not to do so. Regarding the dangers to officers and men conveying goods to ports, such as Hanoi and Haiphong, where there may be the risk of incidents, that possible hazard has been recognised by the National Maritime Board, who have agreed that a 50 per cent. bonus be paid under conditions similar to those operating during the Korean trouble.

Mr. Irvine: Will the Minister give further consideration to the possibility of giving these men the opportunity of contracting out of the service where these conditions apply, with the necessity that sufficient notification should be given?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly look at that again, but my experience of British merchant seamen is that they would give me a pretty dusty answer if I asked them if they wished to contract out of anything.

Mr. Callaghan: Before the Minister undertakes too lightly to consider this, will he remember that the men's unions have these problems very much in mind and are quite capable of raising them?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could raise that at one of his own party's harmonious consultations.

Mr. Irvine: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

London Airport (Cost)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the capital cost to date of London Airport and the annual cost of its operation, including capital and depreciation charges, and fees paid for the use of its facilities.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): The capital cost of London Airport met from Civil Aviation Votes up to 31st March, 1954, was approximately £19 million. In addition, about £1½ million has been spent on purchase of land and certain costs incurred outside the airport. The annual cost of operating the airport, excluding capital and depreciation charges (for which, on aerodromes, there is no recognised basis of assessment), is about £900,000. Fees paid for the use of the aerodrome's facilities and other revenue at present total about £840,000 per annum.

Sir H. Williams: As London Airport is equivalent to a railway station, it must be losing £1 million a year. May I ask if that is not, in effect, another subsidy to the various air services using it?

Mr. Profumo: I cannot accept that London Airport is equivalent to a railway station. There is a great difference indeed. Moreover, the revenue from London Airport is progressively increasing. We expect a very substantial increase in this next year when the facilities in the central area are open.

Mr. Stokes: If I put down a Question on the Order Paper will the Minister tell me the rateable value of the land before purchase?

Mr. Profumo: If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I will do my best to answer it.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not desirable that London Airport and airports generally in the United Kingdom should compare favourably, or on equal terms, with airports in other countries?

Mr. Profumo: I think that London Airport does compare very favourably, and that this House has every reason to be extremely proud both of London Airport and all our other airports.

Sir H. Williams: Is not the annual interest charge on this enterprise about £1 million a year?

Mr. Emus Hughes: How much for the landlords?

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. My hon. Friend has got the matter slightly out of proportion. There is no waste at London Airport. Its revenue is going up every year. If my hon. Friend would put down another Question in about two years' time, I should be able to give him a satisfactory answer.

Equipment and Ancillary Services

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what revenue is obtained, as the result of the equipment and ancillary services, the estimated cost of which in the year ended 31st March, 1954, amounted to £774,600.

Mr. Profumo: The group of equipment and ancillary services referred to is provided as an integral part of the civil aviation ground services organisation in the United Kingdom. Rather over half of this expenditure is related directly to safety in the air and cannot be accurately balanced against any item of revenue. The rest is related to safety on the ground and to the ancillary expenditure on ground equipment, being a contribution to the ground services which in the period under review realised a revenue of £1,269,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

London—Tilbury Line (Electrification)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made with the electrification of the London and Tilbury line.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The British Transport Commission tell me that the technical planning for this electrification scheme is well in hand. The plans for the engineering works at Barking, which include a new fly-over and complete re- construction of the station, are nearly complete. These and other preliminary engineering works, some of which have been started, must precede the electrification itself and will take some years to complete.

Charges Schemes

Mr. John MacLeod: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the present time limit fixed by him under Section 76 of the Transport Act, 1947, for the submission of a railway charges scheme by the British Transport Com- mission to the Transport Tribunal.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: 6th August, 1955, Sir.

Mr. MacLeod: The Minister will appreciate that his reply was rather unexpected and very welcome. Does he realise that this question of freight charges and charges generally—certainly in the Highland area—is becoming impossible and that it is hoped that these charges will prove satisfactory?

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is it not a fact that a charges scheme would have long ago been introduced if the Commission had not been interfered with by the 1953 Act?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Answering the last supplementary question first, I am certain that the charges scheme, because of the 1953 Act, will give more local autonomy than otherwise would have been possible. In reply to my hon. Friend, and in addition to what I have said, as he knows, the Commission have assured me that it hopes to produce a railway freight charges scheme very early, and well before the date that I have given in my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD HAULAGE ASSETS (SALE)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many vehicles of all types have so far been sold by the Road Haulage Disposal Board what is the total proceeds of such sales; and how many vehicles of all types remain to be disposed of.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the total number of vehicles so far disposed of by the Road Haulage Disposal Board; the number that remain to be sold in accordance with the Transport Act, 1953; and the percentages these disposals represent as regards vehicles, with and without premises, of the total numbers offered, respectively.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of the 13,166 vehicles offered in the first seven lists 5,947 have so far been sold, or 18 per cent. of those with premises, and 73 per cent. of those offered without premises. A few cases are still to be decided. I am informed by the British Transport Commission that the purchase prices of the transport units so far sold total about £7·4 million; this includes the sums paid for rights obtained by purchases and for property included in units other than vehicles. About 26,500 vehicles are still to be sold.

Mr. Sparks: Does not the reply which the right hon. Gentleman has given to both these Questions clearly indicate the complete failure of the Government policy, and would it not be better if he ceased monkeying about with national transport and permitted the unsold vehicles to remain with the British Transport Commission in order that it may carry out its enterprise?

Mr. Ernest Davies: rose—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that both supplementary questions will be in the same form.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly answer. The results so far are moderately satisfactory and do nothing to alter my view that, in the long run, it is a great deal simpler to do mischief than to undo it.

Mr. Davies: How can the Minister say that this is satisfactory from his point of view when less than half the vehicles put up for sale—some put up more than once; some three times—have been sold, and that the numbers sold compared with his predictions are only a fraction? Will the Minister, in view of the complete failure, now introduce amending legislation to enable the Commission to operate efficiently the road transport industry?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has in mind when he talks about my predictions. What I have said was that we would carry out the terms of the Act, giving an opportunity for people to bid for these vehicles. A very high proportion of vehicles without premises has in fact been sold. Certain lessons have been learned—[HON.MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I hope, by the Opposition, such as that one cannot prejudge the success of the story at an early stage.

Mr. Callaghan: Assuming that the Minister proposes to continue with the sale of the 26,000 vehicles that are still on hand, how long will it take for them to be sold before the whole operation can be cleared up?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would be a little difficult to give a precise date, but it is clearly a simpler operation to seize private property than to return it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business and on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven of the clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Ordered,
That any Private Business set down fur consideration at Seven of the clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be taken after Nine of the clock, though opposed.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN ACT, 1707 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. John Parker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Succession to the Crown Act, 1707, and other Acts, to provide that the receipt by Members of Parliament of income other than their Parliamentary or Ministerial salaries in excess of such a sum and from such other sources as shall be decided by resolution of the House of Commons shall be deemed to be income derived from an office of profit under the Crown and shall disqualify from membership of the House of Commons as though the Member held an office of profit under the Crown; and for other purposes connected therewith.
The Bill has one simple object and that is to remove the pernicious influence of the over-rich Member of Parliament

by the simple expedient of liquidating that type of person politically. The Bill aims at completing the work which unfortunately has not yet effectively been achieved by Surtax and death duties. Many of us feel that it is highly desirable that this should be done in the interests of our country, in the interests of the House of Commons and in the interests of the Conservative Party.
Our danger in the House of Commons at present has been well stated by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Sir W. Fletcher) who unfortunately, I believe, is ill, in a letter which he sent to the "Daily Mail" a few weeks ago, on 9th June. He said:
The Commons must never become a Tied House.…The Conservative Party should realise the need to see that the best Members come in irrespective of party. We are steadily drifting towards a tied house. Unless a Member can have independence and freedom from financial worry…he is not the best representative for the people of this country.
The hon. Member went on to point out that there were far too many Members in the House of Commons who had particular labels tied to them. He pointed out that some of them had the label tied to them of representing the brewing interests. Others represented the landed interests, and others the building interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] There are others.
In his letter the hon. Member also said:
They are dependent on these interests for monetary assistance which put them in Parliament and maintains them there.
The hon. Member drew the conclusion from his remarks that the only way to deal with that problem was to give Members of Parliament an adequate salary. I fully agree with that conclusion, but I should like to draw a further conclusion, which is that if we are to face up to that problem we must also attempt to remove the influences that affect Members undesirably. In other words, we must remove the undesirable sources of income which some may receive.
The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe appealed to the Conservative Party for support on the ground that it was desirable to raise the quality and standard of the Labour M.P.s who came into the House. I should like to appeal to hon. Members on this side of the House to support my Bill so that we can raise the standard of Members coming into the


House on the Conservative side. I only hope that the Conservative Members will give me the same support when I try to improve their standards as we on this side of the House gave to the hon. Member when he tried to improve our standards.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: He was not very lucky.

Mr. Parker: I am sure that most of us, on whichever side of the House we sit, would agree that the great majority of the House consists, whether we like it or not, of professional politicians. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Whatever may be said by the "Daily Telegraph" in its 19th Century grandmotherly way which thinks it infra dig. for a man to be a professional politician, the fact remains that the great majority of Members coming into the House cannot carry on the profession or the job which they had before they came in.
The miner, the building worker or the school teacher, the university lecturer or the doctor, cannot possibly carry on the job he had before he came into the House. He has to rely in the main on his Parliamentary salary. He cannot continue to earn a living in the job he previously had. There are some exceptions, we know. Journalists can earn a living in the House, so I am told, and we also see quite a number of barristers with us.

Mr. Osborne: What about the B.B.C.?

Mr. Parker: With barristers I would point out that, although people at the top of the profession may find it an advantage to have political connections, I am certain that for young barristers it is a disadvantage to be Members of the House when they are trying to advance in their careers. There is one important group, however, which finds it quite easy to combine membership of the House with a job, and that is company directors. I must say more about them later.
All of us would agree that it is highly desirable that Members of the House should have outside interests, that they should be able to carry on activities and have contacts with people in various walks of life so as to keep in touch with the life and opinion in the country. All of us would agree that it is desirable for back-bench Members particularly to have

outside activities. Some may be unpaid, some poorly paid and some well paid, but there is one important criterion which should be borne in mind when we consider the types of activities, and that is that they should not be activities which prevent a man or a woman from giving adequate attention to the work in this House, and they should not be such as unduly to influence a Member in the decisions that he has to take in this House. In other words, he should not be forced through those activities to subordinate public interest to private interest. Experience shows that those in this House who have overlarge incomes from outside sources are likely to be affected undesirably by the two things which I have mentioned.
We ought, therefore, to pass this Bill and draw up a number of rules to try to meet the difficulties. I suggest that we should not be too harsh upon hon. Members about their outside activities. We might start by allowing hon. Members to have £1,000 net income after deduction of tax, which would represent about £4,000 gross as an outside limit, but if a man exceeded that income he should be disqualified from sitting in the House.
There would, however, always be an avenue of escape for hon. Members. Any hon. Member who wished to continue to devote his services to public work could always hand over the balance of his income to the Exchequer and thereby remove the disqualification. I suggest that that money might well be used by the Exchequer to pay a living wage to Members of Parliament who are less well off. I am certain that many hon. Members would be only too pleased to hand over their surplus income for that purpose.

Mr. R. R. Stokes: Hear, hear.

Mr. Parker: I note that the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) is not in his place. I am certain that if he wished to continue the great work that he has always done to develop the social services in this country, he could find some way of doing so.
I suggest that at the present time the real danger to the House of Commons and its reputation comes not from the professional politician but from the


incompetent amateur who comes into the House and whose main interests are outside the House. That type of person either jumps into some field about the facts of which he is completely ignorant and does no useful work, or else he enthusiastically starts log-rolling in some field in which he is only too well informed. Parliament would be very much better if we got rid of these passengers which the rest of us have to carry.
I see that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) is in his place. I observe from the "Directory of Directors" that he has no fewer than 42 directorships, mainly in property and investment trusts, and is chairman of 23 of them. I cannot see how an hon. Member can give adequate time for all his 42 companies, for his constituency and for the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Croydon, East is also fortunate in that he has 12 directorships and is chairman of no fewer than two trade associations. Those posts cover a very wide field. We know, and many local authorities know to their cost, how wide that field is.
It would be in the general interest of the House of Commons and of the country that this Bill should be passed. There is a very strong case for the House to take these new powers and to use them in the way I have suggested. In doing so, the House of Commons would be adding to the dignity and standing of the House.

Mr. Walter Elliot: I beg to oppose the proposal which has just been made to the House. I consider that the object is bad, the method is bad and the timing is deplorable.
The object, as explained by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), is that the House of Commons should take upon itself the duty of deciding who are to become Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. It is written in the terms describing the Bill and it was stated again by the hon. Member in his speech. The terms of the proposal are:
…income…in excess of such a sum and from such other sources as shall be decided by resolution of the House of Commons shall…disqualify from membership of the House of Commons…
Thus, the House of Commons by resolution decides who shall be disqualified.

[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is in the resolution. There are the words. It was emphasised by the hon. Member in his speech. It was not a matter of inadvertence.
What did the hon. Member say? He said that a chief danger to the House of Commons is the entry into it of amateurs; that is to say, people whom the hon. Member considers to be amateurs. Who is the judge of who enters this House? The electors and no one else. This is not the first time that attempts have been made to limit membership of the House of Commons. Always they have been unsuccessful. A person who comes to the Bar of this House bearing with him the sanction of the electorate is inevitably at some time or other admitted to membership of this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "MacManaway."]—and that has been fought out time and time again. This is one of the most retrograde steps that could possibly be imagined.
The hon. Member said that this is only the beginning. If this method is adopted here, who is to say that it will not be extended by a future House of Parliament and that a Protestant majority will not exclude Catholics or a Catholic majority will not exclude Protestants? This is the way in which Fascist Houses of Parliament are created, by the elected assembly arrogating to itself the right to decide over the heads of the electorate who is to be allowed to join it.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Surely we already exclude those who are gainfully employed under the Crown. We are referring here to private gainful occupation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not customary to have any interruptions during a Ten-minutes Rule debate.

Mr. Elliot: I shall come to the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I said that the object of the Bill is bad. The limitation is to control the House by Resolution of the House. Ministers are not excluded under a Resolution of the House. The situation would be that under a Resolution of this House certain Members duly elected by the electorate would be forbidden to take their places in this House.
The next thing is how it is to be done. It is to be done by a flagrant lie, by deeming a thing to be so which is not so, by assuming that something which is not an office of profit under the Crown and which nobody suggests is an office of profit under the Crown shall be deemed by the Resolution to be an office of profit under the Crown.
Furthermore, the proposal is one which, I suggest, has never been given any thought or consideration from the administrative point of view. What about the hon. Member whose wife has an income? What are the "prohibited degrees" for income under this proposal? Is it possible for a man to have a wealthy relative and live upon his income, which is not the income of the Member concerned? Is that the way to get a free and independent House of Commons? What is to prevent an hon. Member living on his debts? It has been done before. It was Disraeli who boasted that his debts had been a spur to his advancement. Under this proposal, what is to prevent a man borrowing unlimited sums of money, which would not be income, unless a debt is deemed to be income? The only difference between Old King Cole and the Mother of Parliaments under this Bill would be that Old King Cole knew how many fiddlers he had got.
Last of all, I should say that the timing of this proposal is deplorable. As everyone in this House knows, we are in the middle of an acrimonious, wounding, and, if I may say so, degrading argument about the proper scale of remuneration for Members of Parliament. Everyone knows where I stand on that.

Dr. H. Morgan: We never know where the right hon. Gentleman stands.

Mr. Elliot: I have gone on record by signature, by voice and by vote, and I do not withdraw at all from the position which I then adopted or which I adopt

now. But I do say that, at this moment, to muddy the waters of dispute by a proposition such as this, and to attempt to secure a vote from the House of Commons on this proposal, is no service either to the Houses of Parliament or the country.
I do beg hon. Members in all sections of the House, and indeed I beg the hon. Member who asked leave to introduce the Bill, to consider whether they wish to proceed with this proposal now. What we all wish is that this sordid dispute should be dealt with, and that a satisfactory solution should be come to, so that, with a certain amount of give-and-take from all sides, this matter can then be left behind, and we can get on to those great issues which, after all, this House of Commons was returned to settle.
A disproportionate amount of the time of hon. Members has already been devoted to this matter, and this is no time to prolong our discussions. If leave is given to introduce the Bill, the process of legislation would have to follow through the Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading, which, after all, would be the negation of the solution by agreement which we all desire. I strongly oppose the proposal which has been brought forward, and I trust very much that it will not be persisted in.

Question put, and negatived.

FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND (GIFT OF MACE)

Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a Mace to the Federal Assembly of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same, upon Monday next.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

Orders of the Day — MINES AND QUARRIES BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(MEANING OF "MINE" AND "QUARRY.")

(1) In this Act the expression "mine" means an excavation or system of excavations made for the purpose of, or in connection with, the getting of minerals or products of minerals by any means involving the employment of persons below ground.

(2) In this Act the expression "quarry" means an excavation made for the purpose of getting minerals otherwise than by any means involving the employment of persons below ground, but does not include a borehole sunk from the surface.

(3) For the purposes of this Act—
(a) there shall be deemed to form part of a mine so much of the surface (including buildings, structures and works thereon) surrounding or adjacent to the shafts or outlets of the mine as is occupied together with the mine for the purpose of, or in connection with, the working of the mine, the treatment, preparation for sale, consumption or use, storage or removal from the mine of the minerals or products thereof gotten from the mine or the removal from the mine of the refuse thereof; and
(b) there shall be deemed to form part of a quarry so much of the surface (including buildings, structures and works thereon) surrounding or adjacent to the quarry as is occupied together with the quarry for the purpose of, or in connection with, the working of the quarry, the treatment, preparation for sale, consumption or use, storage or removal from the quarry of the minerals gotten therefrom or the removal from the quarry of the refuse thereof:

Provided that there shall not, for the said purposes, be deemed to form part of a mine or quarry premises in which a manufacturing process is carried on otherwise than for the purpose of the working of the mine or quarry or the preparation for sale of minerals gotten therefrom.

(4) For the purposes of this Act a deposit of refuse from a single mine or quarry and any premises used or appropriated for use for the deposit of refuse from a single mine or quarry shall be deemed to form part of that mine or quarry and a deposit of refuse from two or more mines or quarries and any premises used or appropriated for use for the deposit of refuse from two or more mines or quarries shall be deemed to form part of such one of them as the Minister may direct.

(5) For the purposes of this Act a railway line serving a single mine or quarry (not being a railway line falling within subsection (3) of this section or a railway line belonging to a railway company) shall be deemed to form part of that mine or quarry and a railway line

jointly serving two or more mines or quarries (not being a railway line falling within subsection (3) of this section or a railway line belonging to a railway company) shall be deemed to form part of such one of them as the Minister may direct.

(6) For the purposes of this Act a conveyor or aerial ropeway provided for the removal from a mine or quarry of minerals gotten therefrom or refuse therefrom shall be deemed to form part of the mine or quarry.—[Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.56 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is the first of a series of new Clauses, arising out of the consideration of the Bill in Standing Committee, which are designed to meet assurances given in the Standing Committee as a result of the discussions that took place there. I think I may be allowed to say that, on Second Reading, I said that it was the desire of the Government, particularly on a Bill of this kind, to carry it through the Committee and remaining stages in full consultation with the House and with hon. Members, particularly with mining hon. Members. I think it is the fact that there has been a very great deal of constructive consultation, and I should like to express my appreciation to hon. Members who cooperated in it.
The first new Clause, and, indeed, the one that follows, is technical, dealing with the definition of a mine, and in this Clause we have sought to make a definition which is more satisfactory than the law has been in the past. The difficulty with the law in the past was that there was a certain amount of what might be called "fringe" activity in mines and quarries, in which it was impossible to say whether the activity fell within mining legislation or came under the Factories Acts. I am sure that the House would consider that unsatisfactory, and would want to alter it.
The first stage of doing so is to adopt the proposal in this Clause, in which the definition of mines and quarries depends entirely on the fact whether people are employed underground in getting the mineral or not. That is the basis of the definition in this Clause.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I should like to endorse what the Minister has said about consultation throughout


the Committee stage. I think the consultations have been extremely fruitful. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting down this new Clause, and we accept it.

Sir Albert Braithwaite: As one who was not a member of the Standing Committee, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether an opencast mine is a mine or a quarry?

Mr. Lloyd: It is a quarry.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(RELATIONSHIP OF FAC TORIES ACTS AND THIS ACT IN THE CASE OF CERTAIN PREMISES.)

(1) None of the provisions of the Factories Acts, 1937 and 1948, shall apply to any premises forming part of a mine or quarry.

(2) In the case of any premises to which all or any of the provisions of the Factories Acts, 1937 and 1948, would apply but for subsection (1) of this section, the Ministers may by order direct that that subsection shall not apply to the premises and that the premises shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as not forming part of a mine or quarry.

(3) In the case of any premises to which all or any of the provisions of the Factories Acts, 1937 and 1948, apply, being premises which, but for the proviso to subsection (3) of section (Meaning of "mine" and "quarry") of this Act, would be deemed for the purposes of this Act to form part of a mine or quarry, the Ministers may by order direct that neither any of the provisions of those Acts nor that proviso shall apply to the premises.

(4) In the case of premises which are a factory within the meaning of the Factories Acts, 1937 and 1948, or to which all or any of the provisions of those Acts apply as if the premises were a factory, being premises which, though not forming part of a mine or quarry, are occupied by the owner of a mine or quarry and used solely for the purpose of the provision or supply for or to a single mine or quarry, or jointly for or to more than one mine or quarry, of services or electricity, the Ministers may by order direct that, while the order is in force, none of the provisions of the Factories Acts, 1937 and 1948, shall apply to the premises and the premises shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to form part of the mine or quarry or, as the case may be, of such one of them as may be specified in the order.

(5) References in subsections (1) to (4) of this section to provisions of the Factories Acts, 1937 and 1948, shall be construed as exclusive of references to sections one hundred and seven and one hundred and eight of the Factories Act, 1937 (which respectively apply other provisions of that Act to building operations undertaken by way of trade or business or for

the purposes of any industrial or commercial undertaking and to works of engineering construction so undertaken) and to the other provisions of those Acts in so far as, by virtue of the said sections one hundred and seven and one hundred and eight, they are applicable to such operations or works; but—
(a) the said section one hundred and seven shall not apply to any building operations undertaken below ground in a mine; and
(b) the said section one hundred and eight shall not apply to any works of engineering construction undertaken at a mine (whether above or below ground) or at a quarry.

(6) Where any machinery or apparatus is situate partly in a mine or quarry and partly in a factory, the Ministers may by order direct that it shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act and the Factories Acts, 1937 and 1948, either to be wholly situate in the mine or quarry and not to be situate in the factory or to be wholly situate in the factory and not to be situate in the mine or quarry.

(7) In this section the expression "the Ministers" means the Minister and the Minister of Labour and National Services and references to building operations and works of engineering construction shall be construed in like manner as if they were references contained in the Factories Act, 1937.—[Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In spite of the improvement which is being made by the Clause which the House has just passed, there is a certain range of what we may call "fringe" activities for which, even with the improved definition, it would remain uncertain whether they were, in fact, occupations and processes coming under mining law or under the Factories Acts. At first sight it is difficult to understand why that is so, but I think I can give the House an example.
4.0 p.m.
There are certain processes connected with the crushing of stone which are purely mining or quarrying activities, but when tar or other material is added to the stone, that has been sometimes held in the past to be a factory activity. It is absurd when two things are done by substantially the same plant in substantially the same building that it should not be possible to decide clearly which they should be, rather than let them oscillate and during one period of the year be under the Mines Acts and during another period of the year be under the Factories Acts. It is therefore provided


in the proposed new Clause that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Fuel and Power should consult together about such processes and have power to decide the matter by means of an order.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I thank my right hon. Friend for endeavouring to clarify this point which I put to him before the Bill passed its Second Reading. I should like a little further clarification on one aspect of the matter.
Every colliery has a maintenance staff at the pit-head to deal with the mechanical and electrical equipment used in the pit. On whom will the responsibility devolve for periodical inspection of the mechanical and electrical equipment in workshops of that kind? Will it be an inspector mines, responsible for health and safety, or a factory inspector under the Factories Acts?

Mr. Lloyd: That matter would come under a mines inspector.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Harold Finch: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in subsection (5, a), after operations," to insert:
and the said section one hundred and eight shall not apply to any works of engineering construction.
In moving this Amendment, Mr. Speaker, may I deal with the next Amendment, to leave out paragraph (b) of subsection (5)?

Mr. Speaker: It will be very convenient to do so.

Mr. Finch: The new Clause which has been proposed by the Minister of Fuel and Power makes provision whereby undertakings or premises regarded as part of a mine or quarry shall be excluded from the Factories Acts. On this side of the House we realise the importance of that provision and we have no objection to what is set out in the Clause.
The Clause goes on to say that in certain circumstances the Minister may by order arrange that some of the premises may from time to time be brought either under the Factories Acts or under the Bill. That will depend upon circumstances. The proposed new Clause

says that if they come under the Bill, Sections 107 and 108 of the Factories Act, 1937, shall apply. Up to this stage we quite agree with the general purpose of the new Clause.
We are very surprised that at the end it states:
The said section one hundred and eight shall not apply to any works of engineering construction undertaken at a mine (whether above or below ground) or at a quarry.
We are very concerned about the position of engineering constructional works at the surface, which may be similar in character to those in any town far away from the mining industry. The men employed may have been transferred to the undertaking from a city or town and may not be miners in the proper sense of the word. Therefore, they come within the provisions of Section 108 of the Factories Act, 1937, many of the provisions of which have not yet been put into operation. I am referring to surface engineering, and the Bill cannot hope to deal adequately with the safeguards which apply to men working in those circumstances.
What puzzles us is why the Clause should stipulate that Section 108 shall not apply to constructional engineering. As it is not part of a mine or quarry, it must come under the Factories Acts, but why does the new Clause state that Section 108 shall not apply in those circumstances? The constructional engineering regulations cover such things as scaffolds constructed with more than three tiers. They say that no trestles shall be erected on a scaffold and that the platform has to be of a certain height and width. The Bill cannot hope to deal with that aspect of these matters. It seems that people engaged in constructional engineering will remain outside Section 108, and that will place them in a difficult position, because they will get no protection. What is the intention of the Government in saying that Section 108 shall be excluded?

Mr. Albert Roberts: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): I think I can reassure the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) on this point, which incidentally is a fresh point to be taken on the Bill


There has been no change in regard to this provision since the Committee stage and there is no change in the practice.
In the past, all inspection of engineering works has been carried out by inspectors who were mining engineers and whom we consider are competent to carry out the inspections and to apply the law. In practice, there will be no change, but in substance it was considered desirable to make a change.
Under the old law as it would be applied under the Bill, the Factories Acts regulations might well be regarded as applicable to surface operations and to quarries, but it is clearly not the intention of anybody concerned, nor of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment to the proposed new Clause, that these operations should come under factory law. The line of demarcation had to be made somewhere and the best place was considered to be subsection (5, b) of the proposed new Clause. We are convinced that this is the best method of procedure to continue the existing practice, while giving it a more legal and proper framework.

Mr. Stan Awbery: I should like to have the main question cleared up. There are men producing stone for road-making and they would come under the Bill. There are men engaged on the quarryside who find the stone and there are men engaged in tar manufacture. How is the Bill to apply to the quarrymen who are getting the stone, the men who are handling the stone, and the men who are producing tarmac?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not know whether I rightly understood what the Parliamentary Secretary said, but if I did, I do not think that he quite answered the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) who moved the Amendment. He was concerned about engineering construction on the surface in respect of which the workmen ought to have protection, and we think that that protection ought to be given under the Factories Act. As we understand the Clause, that protection would not be given. Surely it is desirable that it should be given. Can the Parliamentary Secretary add a little in explanation?

Mr. A. Roberts: One can expect that in the future far more constructive engineering will take place in colliery yards than hitherto, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) has made a very important point indeed. I do not take as an example what has happened in the past, but what one can expect to happen in the future, and I agree that some real measure of protection, such as that quoted by my hon. Friend under the Factories Act, should be put into operation.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I think that there is a real misunderstanding here, although I do not think that there is any difference of purpose. I want to make it quite clear that we desire that works of engineering construction should come under full and proper control. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) that in future such works may be more ambitious—we hope they will be—and that therefore it is more important that they should be brought under proper control.
It happens that I was concerned with the passage through this House of the Factories Act, and I agree that although there was an advance made on the previous provisions, the provisions in regard to engineering construction in the Factories Act are very and necessarily wide because they have to deal with works of engineering construction which differ enormously in the different sections of the industry.
I think the House will appreciate that as long as we get regulations and proper provisions for dealing with engineering construction, it would be better that those regulations should deal, not with all phases of engineering construction, but particularly with the engineering works that take place at collieries. That we have power to do under the Bill, and that is what we propose to do. I think that we shall get better regulations, and better enforcement, governing engineering construction under the Mines and Quarries Bill than under the old Factories Act.
I will now deal with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman about the men who would be in these fringe industries. I explained earlier that it was our purpose to enable us, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, to decide which was the best method for dealing with those fringe industries. I


should not like to say exactly what will happen, but the way in which it will be decided will be by the Ministers entering into consultation with the industries and with the trade unions and then making an order, which I hope will be acceptable.

Mr. Finch: The Minister's explanation has really strengthened our Amendment. The fact remains that the Clause says:
the said section one hundred and eight shall not apply to any works of engineering construction undertaken at a mine (whether above or below ground) or at a quarry.
We are concerned with works of engineering construction on the surface, and we contend that Section 108 of the Factories Act should apply in those circumstances. That Act contains safeguards peculiar to constructional engineering, and the same safeguards cannot be got under the Mines and Quarries Bill. I have already cited ladders and scaffolds, and could go on giving other examples. I repeat that this new Clause stipulates that Section 108 shall not apply, and, therefore, whatever the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman may be, and whatever the practice has been in the past, we must insist upon the Amendment.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Will the Minister explain the assurance which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) about quarries so as to include the kind of manufacturing process which is so common in the slate-quarrying districts, particularly in Wales? I raised the matter in Committee when the right hon. Gentleman was, I think, quite seized of its importance, and when he responded quite sympathetically. I wonder whether he could now add to what he said in reply to my hon. Friend by giving an assurance that he will use this enabling power to decide whether the manufacturing sheds, so-called, which trim and condition the stone, quarried perhaps at some distance from those sheds, should or should not come within the provisions of the Factories Act, 1937.
If I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he said that before he decided whether a certain aspect of quarrying bordering on manufacturing should come within the Bill, his Department would examine the matter. I followed the right hon. Gentleman's

assurances as far as the point made by my hon. Friend was concerned, and I am only anxious that the slate quarry unions, who are interested in the point, should know that it includes their members.

Amendment to the proposed Clause negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(PROVISIONS AS TO REFER ENCES UPON NOTICES SERVED BY INSPECTORS.)

(1) The following provisions of this section shall apply in relation to any notice served under any provision of this Act or regulations upon the owner or manager of a mine or quarry by an inspector, being a notice which is expressly declared to be one in relation to which the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to references upon notices served by inspectors are to apply.

(2) If the person on whom any such notice is served or, in a case where it is served on two or more persons, any of them, by a counter-notice duly served on the inspector who served the notice demands a reference upon the notice, it shall stand referred to—
(a) a person or persons selected, by agreement between the inspector and the person or persons on whom the notice was served, from amongst the members of that one of the panels of persons appointed by the Minister under this section which is appropriate to the circumstances of the case; or
(b) in default of agreement under the foregoing paragraph, a person or persons selected by agreement as aforesaid (not being a member or members of such a panel as aforesaid); or
(c) in default of agreement under either of the foregoing paragraphs, a person or persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor or, if the mine or quarry to which the notice relates is situate in Scotland, by the Lord President of the Court of Session.

(3) On a reference under this section upon any such notice, any of the following persons may appear in person or be represented, and may give evidence or call such witnesses as he thinks fit, that is to say—
(a) any person on whom the notice was served;
(b) any inspector;
(c) any association or body representative of a majority of the total number of persons employed at the mine or quarry to which the notice relates;
(d) any other persons appearing to the referee or referees to be affected by the notice or any association or body representative of any such persons.

(4) The following provisions shall have effect with respect to the quashing or confirmation of


any such notice upon a reference thereon under this section, namely,—
(a) if no relevant ground of objection to the notice is established to the satisfaction of the referee or referees, he or they shall confirm the notice;
(b) if a relevant ground of objection is so established, the referee or referees shall quash the notice unless he or they is or are of opinion that the objection can be met by modification of the notice, in which case the referee or referees shall confirm the notice subject to such modification as appears to him or them to meet the objection;
and where the notice is confirmed subject to any modification it shall take effect as modified.

(5) For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection—
(a) in the case of any such notice served under a provision of this Act (other than subsection (3) of section one hundred and fifty-nine) any of the following grounds which are appropriate to the circumstances of the case shall be a relevant ground of objection, namely—
(i) that compliance with a requirement sought to be imposed by or by virtue of the notice is, wholly or to a particular extent, unnecessary, inadvisable for reasons of safety or impracticable;
(ii) that any period limited by the notice is insufficient for the purpose of enabling any works to be executed or other thing done;
(b) in the case of a notice served under the said subsection (3), the relevant ground of objection shall be that the division of the mine to which the notice relates does not tend to lead to evasion of the provisions of this Act, orders made thereunder or regulations or otherwise to prevent the carrying into effect of any such provisions;
(c) in the case of a notice served under any provision of regulations the relevant ground or grounds of objection shall be such as may be prescribed.

(6) Save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act or regulations any such notice shall not become operative in any event until the expiration of the period within which a reference thereon may be demanded under this section or, if within that period such a reference is so demanded, until the notice is confirmed by the referee or referees.

(7) The quashing under this section of any such notice shall neither be taken to prevent the service by an inspector of a fresh notice nor, if the notice became operative before it was quashed, affect the previous operation thereof.

(8) The Minister may—
(a) constitute such number as he thinks fit of panels of persons from whom referees may be selected for the purposes of references under this section and, as respects each panel, may designate the cases in which it is to be treated, for the purposes of this section, as the appropriate panel;

(b) make rules for regulating such references and, in particular, for making provision with respect to the cost of such references (including the payment of remuneration and allowances to referees), and for specifying the form of a counter-notice under subsection (2) of this section and the period within which such a notice must be served;
and different periods may be specified by rules under paragraph (b) of this subsection in relation to the service of counter-notices relating to notices served under different provisions of this Act or regulations.—[Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This was a subject which we discussed at great length in Committee. It is an interesting and a rather peculiar subject, because, although its very importance is evidenced by the Section dealing with it in the old Act, it is not a Section which has been very much used. There have been very few references, perhaps merely by the fact that the power of reference is there, but we know that it is important. We want to make sure that we can provide a convenient, competent and speedy method of resolving any of these questions.
The Clause gives effect to the point much stressed in Committee, which was that we ought to have a competent panel ready which could be drawn upon and could come into operation speedily, and which is composed of thoroughly competent people in mining matters. This Clause does that.
I notice that there is still a further point which hon. Gentlemen have in mind about the actual method of selection from the panel,, and perhaps the House will allow me to say that I appreciate the point made, and that I am prepared to meet it in principle It will be necessary to take some action on the matter in another place, and it will also be necessary to provide an independent person to choose members of the panel.

Mr. William Blyton: This is a very important Clause, because many parts of the mine come within the purview of these tribunals. The tribunals will have to decide disputes on such matters as the construction and maintenance of roads, transport rules, the height and width of travel roads, winding and haulage apparatus, support


rules, ventilation, permitted lights, electricity and electrical apparatus, danger from gas and water, safe methods of working, and safe access to working places. The tribunal has to decide any dispute corning before it between the manager and the inspector in relation to the matters mentioned in the Clause.
I have never understood that a lawyer was able to pick his own judge. He has to take his case before the judge appointed by someone else, he cannot object to him, and he has to plead his case in front of that judge. If there should be a dispute between the manager and the inspector about, say, safe methods of working or safe places in which to work, the manager, if he does not like one particular expert on the panel which the Minister will appoint, can say, "I am not having him. I shall go to the Lord Chancellor to try to get someone else." If one goes to the Lord Chancellor the decision is delayed. Here we are quite definite that we want to keep the Lord Chancellor out of it.
Whoever the expert is who is picked from the panel of experts appointed by the Minister for each district, we think that he should be the judge to try the dispute—whether or not the inspector or the manager likes him. If we leave it to the Lord Chancellor, he may put two names in a hat and draw one out—as we used to do in the old days of the minimum wage. We shall have delay from the time of the service of notice. They will argue as to who shall be the referee. They will disagree. The point will come to London and months will elapse before we get a decision on a vital matter.
We therefore ask the Minister for a definite assurance—otherwise we must divide on this Clause—that if he intends to amend the Clause in another place, it shall be to the effect that the expert picked shall be the judge and that we shall not have these squabbles between manager and inspector after notice has been given as to who shall try the case. I should like to ask the Minister to give us some assurance on these matters. May I now move my Amendment, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: When the Clause has been read a Second time, I shall call

the Amendment to which, I understand, the hon. Member has addressed himself.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Blyton: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in subsection (2), after the first "to," insert:
a person or persons selected in a manner to be prescribed from amongst the members of that one of the panels of persons appointed by the Minister under this section which is appropriate to the circumstances of the case.

Mr. A. Roberts: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I agree that we should get away from this process of two of them choosing who shall be appointed from the panel. We are, however, up against a little difficulty. The Minister can hardly choose, because, formally speaking, the Minister, through his inspectors, is one of the parties to the dispute. I think that we can devise another method of choosing independently from among a panel. I can definitely give the assurance that we shall bring forward proposals in another place to meet that point.

Mr. Blyton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause—(HEIGHT AND WIDTH OF TRAVELLING ROADS.)

(1) Every length of road in a mine which is used at the beginning or end of a shift by not less than ten persons for the purpose of walking to or from their working places in the mine, being a length made after the commencement of this Act, shall be not less than five feet six inches high throughout:

Provided that—
(a) provision may be made by regulations for exempting from the foregoing provisions of this subsection any such lengths of road as aforesaid of a prescribed class in mines to which the regulations apply, or any prescribed parts of any such lengths of road in such mines or of any such lengths of road of a prescribed class in such mines; and
(b) an inspector may, by notice served on the manager of a mine, exempt from those provisions any such length of road as aforesaid in that mine or any part of any such length of road.

(2) If with respect to a length of road in a mine which is used as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, being a length made


before the commencement of this Act which is not throughout of a height of at least five feet six inches, an inspector is of opinion that it is inexpedient that it should continue to be so used unless it is heightened, he may serve upon the manager of the mine a notice specifying that length of road and the height (not being more than five feet six inches) to which, in his opinion, it ought to be increased if it is to continue to be so used, and directing that, after the expiration of such period beginning with the day on which the notice becomes operative as may be specified therein, every part of that length of road which is so used shall be throughout (except at such places, if any, therein as may be specified in the notice) of a height not less than that so specified.

(3) If, with respect to a length of road in a mine (whether made in whole or in part either before or after the commencement of this Act) being a length which is used as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, an inspector is of opinion that it is inexpedient that it should continue to be so used unless it is widened, he may serve upon the manager of a mine a notice specifying that length of road and the width to which, in his opinion, it ought to be increased if it is to continue to be so used, and directing that, after the expiration of such period beginning with the day on which the notice becomes operative as may be specified therein, every part of that length of road which is so used shall be throughout (except at such places, if any, therein as may be specified in the notice) of a width not less than that so specified.

(4) The provisions of Part XV of this Act with respect to references upon notices served by inspectors shall apply to a notice served under either of the two last foregoing sub-sections.—[Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee will probably prefer me to state this quite simply. We had a great deal of discussion as to what the actual figure should be. We started off some distance apart and eventually came to an agreement which was somewhere about halfway.

Mr. Tom Brown: I am sorry that I must disagree completely about the height mentioned in this new Clause. It is quite true that the Minister has come some distance towards meeting us, but I think that he should be reminded, with respect, that he has only come that distance as a result of a push from behind. If we had not in Committee attempted to substitute 6 ft. for 5 ft. we should not have got what is now in the new Clause.
Because of my experience of low roadways I am an ardent advocate of road

ways 6 ft. high. The height in years gone by was 3 ft. We had to fight every inch of the way to get it to 4 ft. and now we have tried to get what we consider to be the reasonable height of 6 ft. minimum. While I am well aware that this new Clause, which lays down that the roadways shall be 5 ft. 6 ins., will pass the Report stage and be incorporated in the Bill I prophesy that within the next few years the Minister of Fuel and Power, either by regulation or by amending legislation, will have to substitute the figure six. As an old collier will tell the Committee why.
In many British coalfields we are now winning for the nation coal from seams as low as 22 ins., 24 ins. and 36 ins. Unless regulations or legislation make it compulsory to heighten the roadways, and particularly the travelling roadways, those low seams will mean low travelling roads.
Another reason we should insist on a height of 6 ft. is ventilation. Ventilation is of paramount importance to the man at the coal face and to the men working in the pit. We are now taking what in my pit language we call "greater takes." We are travelling longer distances inbye. We therefore have to see that the roadways not only make it possible for men to travel in comfort but that the roadways themselves take the volume of air necessary to render obnoxious gases less dangerous.
4.30 p.m.
Another factor is that men who are injured at the coalface have to be carried along those roadways to the pit bottom. If the height of the roadway is only 5 ft. 6 ins, it will be extremely difficult for the stretcher bearers to carry those men along the roadway. It is all very well for the non-mining man to say that 5 ft. 6 ins. is high enough. It is all very well for people who do not live in mining areas to say that 5 ft. 6 ins. is sufficiently high for a roadway. But be it remembered that in many of our seams today, particularly in north-east and north-west Lancashire, the gradients are one in three, one in five and one in seven. I know that the Minister, in his heart of hearts, appreciates what it means to carry a stretcher bearing a man weighing 10, 11 or 12 stone along a low roadway to the pit bottom; I know he appreciates


the difficulty which these men experience when travelling along gradients of that kind.
True, there has been some common agreement behind the scenes, and I do not wish to be disloyal, but I do wish to speak according to my convictions. Speaking from my experience, it is a mistake to fix the height of a roadway at 5 ft. 6 ins. from the point of view of the comfort of the men and of getting an injured workman to the pit bottom and then to the surface as quickly as possible. While it may be true that the height mentioned in this new Clause has been agreed—and, as I say, I have no desire to be disloyal—I wish to express my personal opinion that the time has come in mining today when our roadways should be sufficiently high and wide not only to enable coal and men to be conveyed but to provide adequate ventilation to the coalface.
I should like to refer to a report which appeared in a newspaper a fortnight ago. Be it remembered that we are dealing with modern mining. Here is a report of an injured workman on the North-East Coast. He was trapped with a colleague by a 2 cwt. 5 ft. long piece of rock. He was extricated suffering from severe spinal injuries, and the roadway was so low that he had to be strapped to a shovel and dragged one mile from the place of the accident to the pit bottom. This is 1954, and we should have travelled a long way from those conditions.
There are several reasons why I say that 5 ft. 6 ins. is too low. First of all, there is the comfort of the men to be considered. These men are now working in 22-in. seams, and when a man has been cramped up under a roof 22 ins. high for 7½ hours, he does not want to experience further physical discomfort created by a low roadway. Secondly, it is of paramount importance to have sufficiently high roadways for ventilation purposes. I am convinced that a height of 5 ft. 6 ins. is inadequate for the comfort of men engaged in modern mining.

Mr. David Grenfell: The Minister should reconsider the position of roadways in general. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) has had almost as much experience underground as I have—perhaps he has had

more—but I have seen conditions underground change enormously since I started working in the mines 60 years ago. Even as far back as 1887 there was a special provision to safeguard the minimum height of roadways, not entirely in the interests of the men, although it was certainly of benefit to the men. This provision was introduced in the interests of the horse. The law provided for a sufficient height in roadways along which horses travelled to enable the horses to pass without the possibility of the harness or the horse touching the roof. Horses of 14 or 14½ hands—with the collar which was worn underground they would be about 15 hands—required six feet of height to enable them to pass without rubbing.
A manager can be penalised if he allows a horse to rub, but it is possible for a man not only to rub as he passes but to bump his head severely. Many miners are now taller than their predecessors were. I belong to a generation of colliers who very seldom reach the stature of six feet, but colliers today are often six feet high. The main roadway of a pit may be a mile long, and if a height of only 5 ft. 6 ins, is allowed many men will have to stoop all the way. Mechanically, another six inches does not matter much to the industry, but to expect a man to stoop to save six inches of height is really improper in these days.
I expect much from this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince has called attention to the changes taking place in the industry. It is not just a question of the size of the tubs or the height of the men; it is a question of getting sufficient ventilation, and the mines will not be made safe unless the roadways are far more commodious than is proposed in this new Clause. We shall not get good mining unless we have the largest possible airways. Do not let us tie both hands and feet of mining progress by accepting 5 ft. 6 ins. as a sufficient height. I hope the Minister will withdraw this proposal and substitute a height of 6 ft.

Mr. Blyton: I hope it will not be thought that because some of us have accepted this compromise we are less interested in the heights of roads than those who are asking for a height of 6 ft. What actually happened was this. We on these benches defeated the Minister in Committee when


the Minister had a height of 5 ft. in the Clause. We argued that it should be 6 ft.—

Mr. Frank Bowles: May I point out that I had the most unfortunate experience, while in the Chair, of having to give my vote in favour of the Minister.

Mr. Blyton: I know that the Chairman was in an invidious position. We arrived at a compromise of 5 ft. 6 ins. A height of 5 ft. 6 ins. is a tremendous advance on the provisions of the 1911 Act, and it means that every new travelling road will have to be driven in its initial stages at a height of 6 ft. 6 ins. to 7 ft. because it has got to be 5 ft. 6 ins. high after all the pressure has been put upon the road.
I hope that the Chief Inspector of Mines has noted the distressing details of the accident which occurred in Northumberland, when a man who sustained a spinal injury had to be dragged on a shovel for a mile. That sort of thing will not happen with a 5 ft. 6 in. roadway. One cannot expect to have a 5 ft. 6 in. high road on the long wall face, when the seam is only 2 ft. 9 ins. One can expect that height only in the roads leading up to the seam, and not in the roads where the men are working. If a man is injured when working a 1 ft. 9 in. seam, he may have to be dragged on a shovel for about 50 yards to the mother-gate.
I believe that we ought to accept the Clause as a compromise. We should have liked to get a height of 6 ft., but we have failed. We are now getting a height half way between the Minister's former idea and our own. Old trade unionists know that when they went to the office to argue for a tonnage price, and the price was raised half way to what they wanted, they thought they were getting a good settlement. The Clause represents a considerable advance upon the 1911 Act, and provides for a height of 5 ft. 6 ins. instead of 5 ft., as was originally proposed. In all the circumstances, I think we should accept it.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I know that my hon. Friends have spent a great deal of time considering this question in Committee, and that some of them agree to the compromise which is now

being put forward, but I hope that if the compromise is agreed to it will not be regarded as indicating what will be carried out in practice. It is correct to say that this provision offers something much better than was provided by the old Act, but I was never able to see very much correspondence between the provisions of a statute and the conditions in a pit. What really matters is what is carried out in the pit. We say that common roadways shall be no less than 5 ft. 6 ins. in height. In most cases we expect them to be more.
Anyone with any experience of walking long distances underground knows very well that to do so in a cramped position is not only exceedingly fatiguing, but exceedingly bad for breathing. Anyone who has seen old men walking up roadways in pits, with their chins dug into their chests, knows that it is the worst possible posture for breathing, especially when the air itself is bad. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that the statutory minimum is not an indication of future colliery practice. I would call my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that even with this height of 5 ft. 6 ins. certain roadways can be exempted by the inspector. Inspectors used to exempt miles and miles of roadway from the necessity of being supported under the Coal Mines Act.
One of the difficulties about the Bill, and especially about this Clause, is that it does not pay sufficient attention to the fact that the future administration of the pits will be a domestic concern. These inspectors are creatures of the Minister. The Board itself is almost a creature of the Minister. In those circumstances we expect that the internal administration of the pits will be different from what it has been hitherto. Up to now it has been necessary to introduce a statute, because only in that way could the law be made to apply to a colliery owner who made profits out of cheating the law. We hope that the situation will now be different. It is now very much more a matter of domestic administration. I should run to the Aye Lobby with enthusiasm if I thought that this 5 ft. 6 ins. had reference to future colliery practice, which I hope will be very much better than it has been in the past.

Mr. John McKay: I am very pleased that this discussion has taken place. We have been given some information that we did not have before. We all know that the question of the height of roadways is a matter of cost, and it is because of that fact that, during the Committee stage, the height for which the miners' representatives were asking was not agreed to. To get the Bill through as quickly as possible the miners' representatives agreed to a compromise, but why should we compromise in considering human beings when we will not do so in the case of animals which have to work down mines?

Mr. David Griffiths: On a point of order. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) would get this matter in its proper perspective. We did not compromise. If there has been any compromise—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Blyton: On a point of order. Is it right that one hon. Member should refer to others as having compromised the situation? We have done nothing of the kind?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. McKay: I am sorry if people are annoyed because I have risen to speak. Other hon. Members can do so as well, and can be listened to quite calmly and serenely. I did not imply that the representatives of the miners agreed to a compromise during the Committee stage. They put their case. I am glad that they ventilated their attitude, because it should be made known that miners are not satisfied with a height of 5 ft. 6 ins.
What I was trying to say is that for years past there has been an attitude in the mining industry that there must be sufficient height for tubs to travel along the roads, and it has always been agreed that the roadways should be sufficiently high for animals employed in the pits. But there has always been a tendency to compromise in the case of the ordinary human being working in the pit and producing the coal. Although he may have one, or even two miles to walk, it has not been considered necessary to provide a roadway of such a height that

he can travel without stooping. The Clause still preserves the compromise, but there is a difference of only six inches between the Minister and my hon. Friends. Could not the Minister add on that six inches and so give real satisfaction to the miners?
I was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill, but I can guarantee that the minds of the officials who are conducting mining operations today are mainly concerned with the question of £ s. d. A height of 6 ft. could be provided as well as a height of 5 ft. 6 ins., but it is a matter of cost, for the greater the height the greater the cost. I am very pleased the matter has been ventilated, to indicate to the country that the miners who travel for miles in the pits along roadways whose roofs are too low cannot be satisfied even with this new provision, the purpose of which is to try to get coal a little cheaper.

Mr. D. Griffiths: I want to put my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) right, and I do not want to attack the Standing Committee. I was out of order just now in trying to correct my hon. Friend, but now I would tell him frankly that there was no question of compromise here. It was the Minister or one of his colleagues who brought the question of cost into our debates on the Bill. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) I am not happy about the compromise, but it is not the Standing Committee's compromise. I said in Committee, and I say here on the Floor of the House, that I shall not be satisfied until the height is 6 ft. It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend said, that it is a matter of cost, but I do not accept all that my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) said.
As I and various hon. Members said in Committee, once the roadway is made there will not have to be spent on it one penny in five years' time. That, anyway, will be true of the roadways in a considerable number of the mines. In a large number, where there is a rock top and a rock floor, once the roadway is made it will remain for a considerable period. What is more, on such roadways, free from bottlenecks and falls, there is a compensation gained in output that is quite marvellous.
I beg the Minister yet again to give us the extra 6 ins. I do not want to go into the question of the 22-in. seams. I have been down to one; indeed it was a little more than that; but for a great number of years it was my privilege to work at fairly thick seams. We have, fortunately, in South Yorkshire some very thick seams, but we have structural movement there. I can appreciate the concern of the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers and of the Coal Board with cost. Side movement and movement of floor and roof is much quicker in thick than in thin seams, and if the movement were the same all over the coalfields we should indeed have a problem.
It is a difficulty the Coal Board has to bear. However, we cannot disregard it. Although we are Members of Parliament, as ex-miners we are still part and parcel of the industry, and we are not less so because we are in Opposition. We have to take into consideration the question of cost because inevitably the cost falls on the consumers. We are concerned not only with the wellbeing of the miners but with other industries and with the consumers, industrial and domestic. If it is not too late to do so, I appeal once more to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter before Third Reading.

Mr. A. Roberts: This is a subject on which emotions are easily aroused. The arguments that have been put forward now were also put forward in Committee. We have to be practical, and I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who was talking about ventilation, that another 6 ins. of height will not be a very decided advantage in ventilation. The people who have travelled the roads of our pits know that to get a minimum height of 5ft. 6 ins. is a great advance. That remains the case although we have heard the arguments in favour of 6 ft. The dimensions of roadways was not mentioned in the 1911 Act except in respect to connecting roads between two shafts. I do not want to prolong the discussion on the new Clause because I want to get the Bill.

Mr. T. Brown: So do I.

Mr. Roberts: I would remind my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that in the coalfields, including those in Scotland, where the mine roadways have roofs 3 ft. and 4 ft. high

a gigantic task faces the Coal Board. If there is a prescribed minimum of 5 ft. 6ins. any colliery manager of any sense will construct with a height of 7 ft., for he has to allow for supports. I do not want to repeat what has been said in Committee. I am pleased that we are to have a minimum standard prescribed in the Bill, whereas, hitherto, there has not been one. That is our strongest point, and I leave it at that. We want 6 ft., but I am proud to think that we have gained some ground by getting this concession from the Minister.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I shall not take up much of the time of the House, because I was a Member of the Committee and we considered this matter; and I am quite well aware what this means to the men in the industry. We who have had experience of the industry know that, in the past, miners were subjected to intolerable conditions. Often we arrived at a shaft bottom entirely exhausted. The writing into the Bill of this prescribed minimum will be a great advantage.
There is one question I have to ask. We are talking about 5 ft. 6 ins. or even 6 ft. as being the height of the roof, but we have to remember that the roof has to be covered, and that takes away a certain amount of the height. Does the prescribed minimum height refer to the roof itself or to the distance between the floor and the crossbars and so on supporting the roof? Timbering of the roof is bound to take away from that distance.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: It is 5 ft. 6 ins. true clearance under the bars. I have been very well treated by hon. Members, and, therefore, I want to make quite clear my responsibility and that of the Government. It is the Government who must take responsibility for bringing forward these proposals. When we brought forward the original proposal we felt that we were making a considerable advance on what existed in the 1911 Act. It may not have been as far as hon. Members would have liked us to go, and hon. Members pressed us to go further, as, indeed, was their duty. The hon. Member whom I once called the hon. Member for Blyton—the hon. Member for for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton)—pressed the matter very strongly as a good


trade unionist because, he said, the demand had to be high. I am in a different position, for I must be a responsible Member of a Government and I cannot move with quite the same freedom as that with which the demands are made. We started with a certain proposition which was an improvement on the 1911 Act. After hearing representations I was able to go further, but I cannot today go further than the figure given in the Clause.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Would the Minister make this point clear? He has said that he cannot go further than 5 ft. 6 ins. I happen to represent a part of the Lanarkshire coalfield where the seams are very thin—probably the thinnest seams worked in Great Britain. We have the lowest roadways. Some of the collieries which have been closed in Lanarkshire would not have been closed had the roadways been made at an adequate height in the first place. The great difficulty in the coalfield at present is that we are not getting the full advantage of mechanisation at the face because of the bottlenecks in transport.
I should be endangering the continued existence of the few remaining collieries in my part of Lanarkshire if I insisted that every roadway in those collieries had to be made at least 5 ft. 6 ins. forthwith. Nevertheless, I appreciate that even in that part of the coalfield many of the roads are already in excess of 5 ft. 6 ins., and I rose because the Minister failed to say that it was his intention and desire that in future the Coal Board should endeavour to have all the main roadways considerably in excess of 5 ft. 6 ins.
In the Clause we are dealing only with roadways made after the commencement of the Act. It is important to have that in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) said that if the figure were 6 ft. the Coal Board would have art enormous undertaking in front of it in some parts of the coalfield, particularly in Scotland, with the old roadways, but we are not asking them to remake existing roadways, for the Clause applies only to roadways to be constructed in the future.
I ask the Minister to make it quite clear that although he has written 5 ft. 6 ins. into the Bill, that must not be taken as an instruction to the National

Coal Board that 5 ft. 6 ins. is an adequate height for a main roadway in a colliery. I hope that he will not even regard 6 ft. as sufficient for main roadways, but will at least consider a height of 7 ft.

Mr. Lloyd: I thank the hon. Member for making that point, because I rose previously with the intention of making it and forgot to do so. Of course, this is a statutory minimum and a large number of roads will be much in excess of it.

Mr. Noel-Baker: New main roads which are being made by the Coal Board are often very much higher than that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(TRAINING MINES.)

—(1) For the purposes of this Act an excavation or system of excavations made for training purposes shall be deemed to be a mine, and the use for those purposes of any premises which are a mine as defined by subsection (1) of section (Meaning of "mine" and "quarry") of this Act or are, by virtue of this section, deemed to be a mine shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to constitute the working of the mine; but the Minister may by order direct that this Act shall, in its application to any such premises as aforesaid which are used exclusively for training purposes, have effect subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as may be specified in the order.

(2) In this section the expression "training purposes" means the purposes of instructing or training below ground persons in, or in any work connected with, mining minerals.—[Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a Clause to make sure that training mines are brought properly within the scope of the Bill There was a doubt as to whether that was so, and we must make sure that there are proper safety regulations in training mines

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(PREVENTION OF FALL OF ARTICLES DOWN SHAFTS AND STAPLE-PITS.)

(1) Provision may be made by regulations for requiring such steps as may be prescribed to be taken at mines for the purpose of preventing persons from being injured by the accidental fall of articles down shafts or staple-pits thereat.

(2) Subsection (4) of section thirty of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.—[Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause gives effect to an undertaking which I gave in Committee that we should take power to make regulations as far as possible to prevent the danger from articles falling down shafts.

Mr. Awbery: Why have quarries been omitted from the Clause? In the Clause we find only the word "mines." A large number of accidents occur in quarries through falling stone. In fact, in the year before last there were 33 fatal accidents in quarries. Are quarries included in the Clause and, if so, why does not the word "quarries" follow the word "mines"? Perhaps the Minister would give me an assurance that quarries are included.

Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks: I think I can assist the hon. Member quite shortly. This Clause deals only with articles falling down shafts. The general provisions dealing with falls at the face in quarries are covered in other parts of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(PROVISION OF REFUGE HOLES.)

(1) Subject to any exceptions for which provision may be made by regulations, the manager of a mine shall not permit vehicles (not being vehicles moved by hand) to run in any length of road in the mine unless there are provided in that length of road (except in so much, if any, of it as is within seventy-five feet of a working face served by it), at intervals not less than such as may be prescribed and in the prescribed positions, refuge holes the dimensions of each of which are not less than such as may be prescribed and each of which complies with such other requirements as may be prescribed.

(2) Every refuge hole for the time being provided in a length of road in a mine for the purpose of enabling the manager of the mine, without contravention of the foregoing subsection, to permit vehicles to run in that length of road shall be kept free from obstruction.

(3) In this section the expression "working face" does not include a place in a road at which ripping or work of repair is in progress.—[Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This also gives effect to an undertaking which I gave in Committee—an undertaking that we should state in the Bill what we knew we wanted, namely, that there should be the provision of refuge holes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause—(AVOIDANCE OF DANGER FROM GAS IN WASTE.)

(1) This section applies to waste other than—
(a) waste which is—
(i) stopped off in a prescribed manner or in such other manner as may be approved by an inspector; or
(ii) stowed up; or
(b) waste, other than as aforesaid, with respect to which it is known that there is therein—
(i) no inflammable gas; and
(ii) either no noxious gas or no noxious gas in a dangerous concentration.

(2) It shall be the duty of the manager of every mine which contains any waste to which this section applies to secure either—
(a) that there is constanly produced in that waste ventilation adequate for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of section fifty of this Act; or
(b) that appropriate steps are taken for the purpose of minimising dangerous emissions from that waste of inflammable or noxious gas.

(3) Subsection (2) of the said section fifty shall, with any requisite modifications, apply for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection as it applies for the purposes of subsection (1) of that section.—[Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause also gives effect to an undertaking which I gave in Committee—an undertaking that we should take power to deal not only with inflammable gases, but also with noxious gases.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(PROVISIONS FOR INTRO DUCTION OF COMPULSORY USE OF APPROVED BRATTICE SHEETING AND CONVEYOR BELTING.)

(1) The Minister may by order appoint for the purposes of this subsection a day in relation to a class of mines specified in the Order, and where a day is appointed under this subsection in relation to a class of mines it shall not, after that day, be lawful to use below ground in a mine of that class brattice sheeting other than of a type for the time being approved by the Minister for use in mines of that class.

(2) The Minister may by order appoint for the purposes of this subsection a day in relation to a class of mines specified in the Order or to parts specified in the Order of mines of a class so specified (being parts below ground) and—
(a) where a day is appointed under this subsection in relation to a class of mines, it shall not, after that day, be lawful to use below ground in a mine of that class conveyor belting other than of a type approved by the Minister for use in mines of that class;
(b) where a day is so appointed in relation to specified parts of mines of a specified class, it shall not, after that day, be lawful to use in any such part of a mine of that class conveyor belting other than of a type approved by the Minister for use in mines of that class.—[Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause gives effect to an undertaking which I gave in Committee that we should take power in the Bill to deal with the compulsory use of fire-resisting brattice cloth and conveyor belting. It gives the Minister greater powers than he had in the Bill as it was before the Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(POWER OF INSPECTOR TO REQUIRE IMPROVEMENT OF VENTILATION.)

(1) If an inspector is of opinion, with respect to a part of a mine that is by section fifty of this Act required to be ventilated, that, in the interests of the safety or health of the persons employed in that part of the mine, it is necessary or expedient to improve the ventilation produced therein, he may serve upon the manager of the mine a notice specifying that part and stating that he is of opinion aforesaid with respect thereto and requiring either—
(a) that ventilation which, after the expiration of such period beginning with the day on which the notice becomes operative as may be specified therein, is produced in

that part of the mine in pursuance of section fifty of this Act, must conform to such requirements as may be specified in the notice; or
(b) that such works for the purpose of improving the ventilation in that part of the mine as may be specified in the notice shall be executed before the expiration of that period.

(2) The provisions of Part XV of this Act with respect to references upon notices served by inspectors shall apply to a notice served under the foregoing subsection.—[Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause gives the inspector power to require improvements of ventilation not on any specific ground, but on the basis of his expert opinion as a mining engineer and an inspector. In Standing Committee we came to the conclusion that that was the wise thing to do.

Mr. Blyton: Am I to understand that the Clause gives the inspector power to deal with the excess of humidity which may take place in various cases in the mines and to order improvements in ventilation to abolish it?

Mr. Lloyd: I have received advice, I am glad to say, that in this Clause ventilation includes humidity.

Mr. T. Brown: I think that this Clause is the result of something which was said in Committee when we were discussing excessive heat and excessive humidity. I hope that the Minister will see to that aspect when he draws up the regulations giving the inspectors power to carry out what is intended by this Clause, because the Committee were greatly concerned when we were discussing the question of ventilation. It was on the undertaking of the Minister on that point that we withdrew our pressure at that time. Now we have before us something which I think has gone a long way, subject to the one proviso that the regulations which will govern the application of the clause shall be rigidly drawn up to govern the inspector of mines who is charged with this responsibility.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(FIRST-AID.)

(1) It shall be the duty of the manager of every mine to secure the provision thereat of adequate facilities and equipment for the purpose of rendering first-aid to persons employed at the mine who, while so employed, suffer bodily injury or become ill.

(2) Regulations may—
(a) determine for mines of any class what are adequate facilities and equipment for the purposes of the foregoing subsection;
(b) require the attendance at mines during working hours of persons trained in first-aid treatment and the making and carrying out at mines—
(i) as respects persons who, while employed below ground thereat, suffer bodily injury or become ill, of such arrangements for their conveyance to the surface as may be prescribed; and
(ii) as respects persons who, while employed thereat (whether above or below ground), suffer bodily injury or become ill, of such arrangements for their conveyance (where necessary) to hospitals or their homes as may be prescribed.—[Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause also gives effect to an undertaking that we should take the power to make regulations for properly trained men to deal with accidents in the pits and be able to take men from the place where they may be injured or fall ill. I am advised that the new Clause gives effect to that undertaking, but I can see that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) has an Amendment which deals with the question, which shows that he is not quite certain that that is the case. I wish to tell him that I shall be prepared to accept his Amendment to make the drafting of the Clause clearer.

Mr. Awbery: I am at a loss to understand why quarries are left out of this Clause. This is a Mines and Quarries Bill, and the provision of first-aid made in this Clause applies only to the mines. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why, in the first line of the new Clause, he did not put the words "every mine and quarry." If he did that I shall be satisfied, or I shall be satisfied if he will give us an assurance, as he has done on a previous new Clause, that quarries are covered by some other Clause.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The provisions of this Clause are applied to quarries by Clause 107.

Mr. Awbery: Could we be given the reason why quarries are not mentioned in the new Clause? When the Bill is being interpreted in the courts the Bill will be looked at, not what the Minister says in this House. The new Clause mentions only mines, not quarries. Could the Minister later include the word "quarries"?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to Clause 107 of the Bill, he will see that it applies this new Clause to quarries.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Harold Neal: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, after the first "conveyance," to insert:
from the place where they were injured or became ill.
I have no desire to detain the House. I thank the Minister for his assurance.

Mr. A. Roberts: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(POWER OF INSPECTOR TO REQUIRE PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL WAYS OUT FROM WORKING FACES IN COAL MINES.)

(1) If an inspector is of opinion, with respect to a working face in a mine of coal, that in the interests of safety it is necessary or expedient to provide thereat a greater number of ways out therefrom, he may serve upon the manager of the mine a notice specifying that face and stating that he is of opinion as aforesaid with respect thereto and directing that, after the expiration of such period beginning with day on which the notice becomes operative as may be specified therein, the face shall not be worked unless there are provided thereat such additional roads affording means of egress therefrom as may be specified in the notice, being roads leading to such places as may be so specified.

(2) The provisions of Part XV of this Act with respect to references upon notices served by inspectors shall apply to a notice served under the foregoing subsection.—[Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The new Clause gives effect to the desire expressed in Committee that the inspector should have power to require


the provision of additional escape roads in coalmines. We discussed this matter a good deal, and thought it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the inspector for various safety reasons.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Blyton: I quite agree with the Clause, because I feel that the inspector should have the power. When we discussed this matter in the Standing Committee the very important question of dummy gates was raised. I see nothing in the new Clause to provide that the Minister will stipulate that if dummy gates are used there will be proper ventilation. I should like to ask the Minister why, if dummy roads—which can be dangerous roads—are to be used there is not provision in the Clause that they should be properly timbered and properly ventilated.

Mr. Lloyd: That matter is dealt with in other provisions of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(POWER TO REQUIRE PROVISION OF TRAVELLING FACILITIES.)

Regulations may require the provision, in such cases as may be prescribed, of facilities whereby persons employed below ground in mines may be carried through the roads whereby they go to and from their working places or through parts of those roads, being cases where the provision of such facilities as aforesaid appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient in the interests of safety or for the purpose of avoiding excessive fatigue being caused to such persons in going to and from those places.—[Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause gives the Minister power to require the provision of travelling facilities, which is a very important question that we discussed at some considerable length in the Standing Committee. Everybody connected with mining, even those who have a less strong connection with it than that of having worked in the mines, will appreciate the importance of this. The development of man-riding has a considerable part to play, not only from the point of view of safety but also, I believe, of production, the saving of time and energy of men in getting to their work with less fatigue.

I hope that we may be able to make proper use of these powers in future, and also that the Coal Board will co-operate in the provision of man-riding facilities.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I wish to welcome the new Clause. I am glad that the Minister has put it in the Bill, and I endorse what he has said. Everybody is now agreed that both on the grounds of safety and still more on grounds of economic advantage—of increasing the output of coal—this is a very important development which should dominate the layout and reconstruction of the mines in the next 10 years. I believe it is true to say that when the national plan has been completed about 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the coal we get will come from new mines or mines which have very largely been reconstructed, and in which, therefore, I hope, that this new principle will be followed. I wish to ask whether it is not the case that the Coal Board has adopted this as its policy and is pushing it with all the vigour it can.

Mr. Bevan: Are we quite clear about the constitutional implications of this pew Clause? If it means what I hope it means I am very much in favour of it, but it by-passes the Coal Board at once and makes the Minister responsible to the House of Commons for failure to issue instructions to the Board. This is a very remarkable way in which to introduce a revolutionary principle into legislation, though far be it from me to object to the proposal on other grounds.
I should like my hon. Friends to realise what is happening. If the Minister should be given power by statute to issue what amounts to administrative instructions to the Coal Board, and be required to answer to the House as to why he has not done so, and if it be correct to do it in this case, why should it not be correct to do it in other cases? For example, the Minister here imposes upon himself the obligation where it is
necessary or expedient in the interests of safety.…
Suppose an accident occurs in the pit, the Minister not having exercised his power to give directions to the Coal Board. The Minister is, therefore, culpable.
The second point deals with excessive fatigue. I am delighted that is so. I would point out to hon. Members that this will change the Order Paper at once.


If the Minister accepts this obligation, hon. Members will be entitled to ask him, on the Order Paper, why he has not carried out the instructions and taken action, which, in this regard, is of an administrative nature. It does not apply to the other regulations at all. The Minister takes upon himself the power to give instructions. If the Minister is quite clear about the constitutional frontiers which he is drawing round himself, I support this at once, and I hope that it is an invitation that he will accept more and more direct responsibilities, because that increases the power of the House of Commons itself.

Mr. T. Brown: Before we leave this new Clause, which relates to giving powers to the Minister to make provisions by regulations, I want to reinforce the argument which I advanced on Second Reading. That is that before the regulations governing this type of case and other types of saftey measures in the pits are finalised, the regulations should be submitted to this House in draft form. Although that may be a departure from the general practice, I think that, in the interests of health and safety, Members on both sides ought to have an opportunity of examining to what extent the regulations will improve the health and safety of the mineworkers.
It is apparent to every hon. Member of this House that procedure prohibits us from suggesting or recommending Amendments to the regulations. When the regulations are tabled we have either to accept them as they are, or reject them by praying against them. We had no opportunity of making any suggestions by way of amendment. The point which I put is a very important one when it concerns the health and safety of human beings—that before the regulations are finalised, they should be submitted to this House in draft form, so that we can examine them and give our approval or otherwise, or make recommendations. I wonder whether the Minister, in drafting the regulations, which he has power to do under this new Clause, can tell us that that will be done.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am rather flattered, as a Conservative Minister, to be held up as a fellow revolutionary.

Mr. Bevan: An unconscious revolutionary.

Mr. Lloyd: I have such faith in my constitutional beliefs, that I believe I am saved from the "soft impeachment."
The position is quite clear. In this kind of legislation, the Minister has always had great powers of making regulations, and under the 1911 Act it has been found that the Minister has extraordinary powers of regulation-making, which have been decided empirically by Parliament, from the point of view of safety and health.

Mr. Bevan: What about fatigue?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a definite aspect in relation to safety. We all came to that conclusion in Standing Committee. Therefore, I think that the position is quite clear. With regard to the normal productive processes, and taking into account the question of safety, which the Coal Board is statutorily required to do, it will take its normal decisions with regard to the amount of man-riding, like the colliery proprietors did in the old days.
Now we are also empowering the Minister to make regulations, which will be made after consultations, which include those with the National Union of Mineworkers, to deal with this matter on the basis of considering the safety aspect, and we have specifically stated that the question of fatigue is one which the Minister ought to keep in mind from the point of view of safety. I therefore welcome this responsibility of the Minister, and I do not think that it is revolutionary, but it is progressive, and I am glad that in future I and other Ministers will have that responsibility.

Mr. Bevan: I can add this only with the permission of the House, but I should like the Minister to answer a question. If he will look at this, he will find that it does not empower him to make regulations generally, but to make regulations with regard to a specific pit or part of a pit, and to make these regulations with respect to safety, accessibility and fatigue. Will not, therefore, a Member of this House be entitled to say, "In No. 1 pit of a certain district the men are excessively fatigued because travelling facilities are not made available to them. Will the Minister see what can be done about it?"
The Minister is not dealing with the regulations in general. He has an


obligation to deal with certain places, so I am afraid, although I am delighted to hear what he says, that in this case his revolutionary ardour is involuntary and he has not seen the significance of the language which he is using in this Clause. I am delighted with it, and I hope that what I have said will not warn him off.

Mr. T. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the point I raised?

Mr. Lloyd: There is general consultation, as the hon. Member knows, in making the regulations, and the regulations will, of course, come before the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—(GENERAL DUTIES OF MINE AND QUARRY OWNERS.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "reasonably be calculated," and to insert 'be necessary."
This is the first of what, I fear, the House will consider to be a very long series of Amendments—in fact, there are 36 in this particular series—and, therefore, perhaps it would be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I mentioned how they arise. They all flow from, and are consequential upon, Clause 149. Clause 149 is the new Clause which was introduced in Committee, after a great deal of discussion and consultation.

Mr. D. Griffiths: And heart burning.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: It was introduced in its final form now in the Bill without a Division, and, I think, with the approval of the Committee.
The object of the new Clause was to provide one omnibus line of defence running through the Bill instead of the numerous escape Clauses which are scattered in the Bill. As the new Clause had to be considered at the end of the Committee's considerations, it was not possible in Committee to deal with the question of removing from the Bill the various escape Clauses which have been supplanted by Clause 149. It is for that reason that it is necessary for us to ask the indulgence of the House to deal with these Amendments as they crop up, which I think the House will probably be able

to consider, after this first one, as consequential Amendments. They are all to the effect of deleting the phrases "reasonably practical," "reasonably calculated" and "reasonably necessary." This particular Amendment is to delete "reasonably be calculated."

Sir Thomas Moore: I am very grateful for this opportunity of saying a few words on this Amendment which as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary says is one of a series extending throughout the Bill and which of course, is tied up with Clause 149. I am not a lawyer, although I hope that will not be held against me, and I cannot therefore express my argument in legal phraseology. I know, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will recognise my inevitable shortcomings and will give me the assurance and comfort in layman's language which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has not given in his opening remarks.
5.30 p.m.
Those Members of the House who were Members of the Standing Committee may recall that on several occasions I referred to the difficulties that might be experienced by employers in the mining and quarrying industries. In the view of the quarry owners, in particular, this series of Amendments seems to impose new, additional and onerous obligations which they feel it might be almost impossible to fulfil. For that purpose, they want an assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend that their fears are groundless.
In other Amendments of the same nature throughout the Bill, there is a change in phraseology from other Acts of Parliament, such as the Coal Mines Act, 1911, inasmuch as "impracticable" has been used instead of "reasonably practicable." I do not know the precise legal difference between the two phrases, and it is on this precise point that I should like comfort from my right hon. and learned Friend.
Being ignorant in such matters, I sought the guidance of certain legal friends in the House, and they have quoted a number of judgments that were given in cases similar to those which might arise in connection with the Bill when it becomes an Act. I was given the name of Lord Atkin, in the case of the Coltness Iron Company v. Sharp and was referred to certain remarks by Lord


Tucker and an interesting judgment by Mr. Justice Maule. They all seem to combine to regard the words "reasonably practicable" as the proper and fair method of describing the responsibility which must be placed on the quarry or mine owner or on the mine manager.
Mr. Justice Maule, who gave an example, said that a man may be said to have lost a shilling when he dropped it into deep water, and although it might be possible by some contrivance or other to recover it, it would not be reasonably practicable to do so because of the labour, time, and so on, involved to get the shilling out of deep water. That is a rather telling argument. I can only say that I have such implicit confidence in the judgment and integrity of my right hon. and learned Friend that I am willing to accept any assurance that he can give me.
There is one point that it is important to clear up. When does a qualified duty or obligation cease and when does it become absolute? The quarry owners believe that all duties that are imposed on them, whether rightly or wrongly—I am merely expressing a view—should be qualified by an element of reasonableness. It is on this one issue that I seek the clarification of my right hon. and learned Friend.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) has rather put me on the spot in what he expects me to be able to do. I think that the House would like me to explain as briefly as I can the point which troubles my hon. Friend and those who have asked him to raise it, and to explain how I think their fears are unfounded.
As has been mentioned, the origin of the Amendment and some 30 or more consequential Amendments is that we have decided that it is not desirable to have the Bill, as one might say, peppered with specific escape provisions. In the Coal Mines Act, 1911, there was what might be called an overall escape provision. When we came to prepare the present Bill, we thought it would be rather better to deal with the individual cases and thereby, perhaps, deal with the very point which my hon. Friend has raised; that is to say, how to show where the absolute obligation ends and the qualified obligation begins.
Throughout the Bill one finds expressions like "as may reasonably be calculated," "so far as is reasonably practicable," and so on. When the matter came to be discussed in Committee—I speak in the hearing of hon. Members opposite who have pleasant, and perhaps some not so pleasant, recollections of those long days we spent upstairs—it become obvious as we went along that this constant repetition of the expression "not reasonably practicable" and similar expressions was causing everyone a great deal of irritation. The feeling grew more and more that he old system of having one all-over Clause, drawing the individual obligations in clear terms and then giving managers and owners some general right of escape, was preferred by the Opposition, and there were also Members on this side who seemed to feel the same way.
Therefore, after we had passed a number of the Clauses—that is why these Amendments have to be made now—I was asked to see, with the assistance of the Parliamentary draftsman, whether it would be possible to find a form of words which would provide a general escape Clause in terms which were acceptable and which would not substantially alter the legal position from what it was before, and which would enable us to get rid of these numerous irritants.
In so doing, I referred at once to the Coal Mines Act, 1911, in Section 102 of which I found that there was this present protection. The significant thing was that it was in two parts. Subsection (3) dealt with the criminal liability, and subsection (8) dealt with the civil liability. The language that was used in those two cases was slightly different.
In the case of the civil liability, the language was that the owner
shall not be liable to an action for damages … for breach of statutory duty in respect of any contravention of or non-compliance with any of the provisions of this Act if it is shown that it was not reasonably practicable to avoid or prevent the breach.
Those are the words that have been used in a large number of these "peppering" provisions. In subsection (3), dealing with the criminal provisions, nothing was to
render the owner, agent, or manager of a mine liable to a penalty in respect of any contravention … if he proves that the contravention or non-compliance was due to causes


over which he had no control and against the happening of which it was impracticable for him to make provision.
It was decided—I think the Committee generally approved—that we should have one single provision covering both civil and criminal proceedings. I think one can see at a glance from what I have read that there is plenty of room for the lawyers to get into arguments if there is a change in the same subsection.
I must not trespass on Clause 149, but it can be seen by reference to it that we have there provided a general escape Clause based largely on the word "impracticable." We have made it as simple as possible in deference, not to the Opposition, but to the men who have got to do the actual work in the mine, and who are entitled to read and do read the provisions of the Bill. A great many people read Acts of Parliament, and it was impressed upon us that the language of an Act was an important thing and simplification was something which would be welcomed. The House of Commons has said that recently on several occasions. We therefore took a simple expression based on the word "impracticable," as hon. Members can see by looking at the Clause.
What has been said is that because civil liability in the 1911 Act was based on the expression "not reasonably practicable," the changing of the wording to "impracticable" might have the effect of placing a heavier onus on the owner than was the case before. All I can say is that even if it were not for the existence of Section 102 (3) in the 1911 Act, to which I have already referred, I would say there is substantially little difference between these two things. But when one finds that the word "impracticable" is the word actually used for criminal liability in the 1911 Act, I do not think that anyone can say there is anything unreasonable in making that the criterion of the present Bill.
I am entirely in the hands of the House in the matter, and, if I can, I will give any further explanation upon it if that is desired. I cannot see that there is any real reason for alarm. We have given the benefit to the owners in this way. The protection that we provide is based upon the criminal provisions of the 1911 Act, and the House will be aware that in similar circumstances the

liability is always less and the onus of proof is always more easily discharged by a person who is accused of any offence or contravention under the criminal code than in any other case. Therefore, I think the words we have adopted are fair to the owners, and I hope that the House will accept them.

Mr. Richard Fort: Can my right hon. and learned Friend quote any case in which the expression containing the word "impracticable" in the 1911 Act has been defined by judicial decision?

The Attorney-General: I am afraid I cannot give it, for the reason that "impracticable" has relation to criminal cases, and there are no criminal cases of which I am aware that have gone to any court of appeal where it was necessary for the court to define the word "impracticable." If the matter is dealt with in the ordinary criminal courts, there is no necessity for any such decision. There is the decision on the word "impracticable" to which my hon. Friend referred when he was talking about hearing the penny drop.
It has been said, and I hope it is hardly necessary for me to repeat it, that when one is using the word "impracticable" one does not mean "impossible." One means "impracticable" according to the businesslike understanding of people who are carrying out commercial or industrial operations.
As has already been said, no one wants the question of costs to interfere with safety, but it will be obvious that, if it were necessary to expend several million pounds in order to avert the possibility of an accident, no one would suggest that that has got to be done. After all, we must conduct this great industry on a proper basis. Therefore, anyone who says that by using the word "impracticable" we would make it impossible for the owners to escape liability even in cases where they are faced with vast expenditure is not speaking accurately, and I do not think the House need be alarmed by that possibility.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 6, after "fulfilment," insert:
, in relation to the mine or quarry.

In line 13, leave out "as," and insert "for the purpose."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, at the end, to insert:
and to the manager of the mine or, as the case may be, the manager of the quarry or (where there is more than one manager thereof) each of them.
This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the object of which is to ensure that, in the event of an owner giving instructions of special responsibility to any person who is not a manager, copies of the instruction shall be sent by the owner or given by the owner to the manager of the mine or any manager of a quarry. That fully implements the undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(APPOINTMENT, AND GENERAL DUTIES AND POWERS, OF MINE MANAGERS.)

Amendments made: In page 2, line 22, leave out a manager, "and insert" "an individual."

In line 28, leave out from "of," to "the," in line 29, and insert "securing."

In line 39, after "who," insert ",if an individual."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Clause 3.—(RIGHTS OF MINE MANAGER WITH RESPECT TO INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY OR ON BEHALF OF OWNER.)

Amendment made: In page 3, line 3, after "fulfilment," insert "in relation to the mine."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, to leave out subsection (2), and to insert:
(2) Except in a case of emergency, neither the owner of a mine nor a person acting on his behalf shall, except with the consent of the manager of the mine, give, otherwise than through the manager, any instructions to a person employed at the mine who is responsible to the manager; and where the owner of a mine or a person acting on his behalf gives, in either of the said excepted cases, instructions which, apart from the exception, would be required to be given through the manager of the mine, the person who gave the instructions shall, forthwith after he has given them, inform the manager of the substance thereof and, if requested so to do by the manager, confirm them in writing forthwith after the making of the request.

The foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any instructions given by an under-manager of a mine or a person appointed by the manager of a mine in pursuance of this Act or regulations.
This Amendment also gives effect to an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend to redraft the subsection so that it should provide that instructions must not be given to a subordinate except in an emergency or with the manager's consent. This subsection is redrafted in line with the similar subsection which applies to quarries and which was introduced in a new form. They tie up together.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 29, at end, insert:
in relation to the mine."—[Mr. Joynson-Flicks.]

Mr. Grenfell: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, at the end, to insert:
(c) all such written instructions shall be kept in the official records of the mine or quarry;
(d) where the manager of a mine or quarry is of opinion that the written instructions would or might be likely to prejudice the safety or health of the persons employed at the mine or quarry he shall, pending consultation with the inspector, decline to execute them.
We do not like the idea that instructions should be given to anybody without any record being kept, and so we ask that they shall be given in writing and kept in the official records of the mine or quarry, so that they can be available for examination at any time.

Mr. Blyton: This is an important Amendment because it arises directly from the Knockshinnock disaster in Scotland. It is an attempt to prevent the divided responsibility which led to that disaster two or three years ago. It also deals with the hierarchy between the National Coal Board and the manager of the pit and the power to interfere with the safe working of the pit.
We had a long discussion on this point upstairs and we on this side of the House took the view that written instructions are no less dangerous because they are in writing. It takes a very courageous manager to take a stand against those above him, even if he believes that the written instructions he receives are prejudicial to the health and welfare and safety of his men. Therefore, we want to put the manager in a position where, although he has received written instructions from


those above him to do a certain thing, if, as manager of that pit, he still believes it will be prejudicial to the safety of his men, he shall not be forced to undertake it until such time as he has had an opportunity to consult the inspector for the division.
When in Committee we were seeking to ensure that the manager should have power to go to a tribunal to protect his job, which might be jeopardised because he refused to carry out written instructions, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
But the manager is not left without his remedies. We believe that the remedies which are inherent in his position give him a much stronger standing than this right to run off to a referee. First of all, he has Her Majesty's Government Inspector of -Mines. If he thinks that he is being asked to do something which is contrary to good safety practice, the first thing he can do is to call in the Inspector of Mines and to say, 'Is this a right and proper thing?' "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A. 23rd February. 1954; c. 128–129.]
Since the Parliamentary Secretary said that the manager had the right to go to the inspector, we thought it advisable to specify the inspector here, in view of the Knockshinnock disaster. Also, in that disaster instructions were given, but not in writing. Therefore, this Amendment ensures that all written instructions given to a manager by the hierarchy above him shall be kept at the office so that, if a future disaster occurs arising from such instructions, they can be found there and used in evidence. For these reasons, I support the Amendment and I hope the Minister will accept it.

Mr. A. Roberts: It is possible that this provision may never have to be used, but if only on one occasion loss of life is prevented as a result of it, I consider that it is well worth spending our time in talking about this Amendment. We have to realise that in making such decisions the human element comes in, and that there is always a possibility of mistakes being made. Cleverness is not always wisdom, and if a colliery manager is given instructions to do something, and has gained wisdom from his experience, he may be of opinion that what he has been instructed to do will result in loss of life.
I cannot see why this Amendment should not be accepted. After all, we want the same thing—to prevent injury and loss of life in the mining industry. This Amendment will not impede coal

production, it will not cause ill-feeling between the colliery manager and the hierarchy which has been referred to, and it may be important in preventing disaster. Because of the catastrophe in Scotland which has been mentioned, we hope the Minister will have second thoughts on this matter.

Mr. David J. Pryde: I appeal to the Minister to consider this Amendment favourably. I spent some years in a colliery office and I well remember one grisly experience in the year 1910. Because there was no such phraseology in the 1873 Act, a workman let loose hundreds of tons of water, with the resulting death of two men and the injury of six others. That experience, and the Knockshinnock disaster in recent years, gives the Minister sufficient illustration of the dangers which could be avoided by the acceptance of this Amendment.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Brown: I support the Amendment. It is important that instructions given by a colliery manager in matters like these should be on record in the colliery office. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), I recall that some years ago when I was in the coalfield I was charged with the responsibility of making inquiries into the cause of a disaster which involved the loss of seven men. In the course of those inquiries I was informed by one or two subordinate officials of the mine that they had had instructions from the manager to do such and such things. Unfortunately, I discovered that the manager could not be questioned. He had lost his life in the disaster.
I called upon his subordinates to produce the instructions. They said that they had not been given instructions in writing and that if they were in writing they knew nothing about them. I concluded that, in future, instructions issued by a manager to a subordinate should be in writing and that a record of the instructions should be kept in the colliery office. That is of paramount importance.
Copies of practically every report made by a colliery deputy during the 24 hours are kept in the colliery office. If it is important and essential that copies of reports on the daily round and common tasks and operations at the pit should be


kept, it is equally important and essential that records of instructions given by the manager to subordinates should also be kept in the colliery office. This is not asking a great deal. We are not asking that every little tittle-tattle of instruction should be written down, but when instructions involve a change of policy in the working of the mine, a change in the ventilation and other important matters, in the interests not only of the men who are working in the pit but of the Minister a record should be kept. If a catastrophe occurs the Minister will be called upon by Private Notice Question to answer questions from both sides of the House. I trust, therefore, that the Government will agree that it is of paramount importance that the Amendment should be accepted, because it would tend to greater safety in future.

Mr. George Sylvester: If the Amendment were accepted, it would help the manager, because from the administrative point of view mining has altered very considerably in recent years. There are now divisions, areas, sub-areas and two or three pits in a group and there are people who, at any time, can give instructions to the manager. If the manager does not have those instructions in writing and the catastrophe occurs, somebody can come along and say, "Mr. So-and-So gave the manager these instructions." In the interests of all, from the manager downwards, the Minister ought to accept the Amendment so that when an accident happens officials will be safeguarded from somebody coming along and suggesting that they have not carried out certain instructions given to them.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: We are in thorough sympathy with the first part of the Amendment, contained in the proposed paragraph (c), and we will undertake to introduce in another place the best form of words to give effect to it. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will be satisfied with that. On the whole, we think it unwise to agree to the second part, the proposed paragraph (d). We have discussed this matter a great deal and, as hon. Members know, I have thought very hard about the question whether it would be possible to go further in giving protection to the manager.
We have already given him very considerable protection in the fact that in certain circumstances he can demand to have instructions in writing from somebody who has the same mining qualifications as himself. If he is not satisfied with that, he can demand that they shall be confirmed in writing by someone specifically appointed by the owner to confirm such instructions. In the case of the National Coal Board, it would be a man of such mining experience as would make him particularly competent to deal with the questions which aroused slight doubt in the manager's mind.
We feel that the best practical resort for a mine manager in such a case is to communicate confidentially with the mines inspector. That is always open to him. We feel that this is not a case in which anything is added or improved from the point of view of the mine manager by putting this provision in the statute. The mine manager has a right to go to the mines inspector in confidence. We would expect him to do so and in such a case the mines inspector would give him support.

Mr. Bevan: That was a very peremptory reply on a very important matter. As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, this was one of the central objections to the Bill on Second Reading. Although the Bill has been subsequently improved, nevertheless there is still a difficulty here which has to be resolved. It is not enough to say that the colliery manager can have a confidential conversation with the inspector. Can that be pleaded in evidence in an inquiry? The manager need not do it. He might do it, but if he did, would a record of the consultation be kept? If consultations have taken place, will the mines inspector take the responsibility of authorising the manager to go on? That is a very difficult situation.
I should have thought that we must go much further. One must always assume that a mine manager does not act frivolously in these matters. He will only take this exceptional step if he is very satisfied that danger is involved. First of all, he will have received written instructions, and therefore he is quite clear about them. After having examined them, he will say, "In my view these ought not to be carried out and I am


going to see the mines inspector." He sees the mines inspector and I should not have thought that the mines inspector would put himself in the grave position of saying to the manager, "Your fears are groundless. Go ahead." If anything happens after that, the mines inspector is in trouble. It puts the mines inspector in the position of being an administrative official and not an inspector. That is the difficulty.
Surely what would happen in practice would be that the mines inspector would go to a person superior to the mine manager and say, "Do you not think that you ought to pay attention to what the mine manager says?" The mine manager is on the spot. The man who is giving him instructions will have a general knowledge about the position but not a precise knowledge about the pit or a district in the pit. Therefore, the authority of the mine manager is always superior in that respect, in that his knowledge would not be academic as would be the knowledge of a superior person with similar qualification, but would be precise and particular with regard to that part of the pit. Therefore, in our view, if the mine manager has taken exception it is an exception which ought at once to be respected and ought not to be set, aside unless further steps are taken to investigate.
I quite see that the Amendment can be improved. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the movers of Amendments do not tie themselves to the actual language. It is for him to consult the Parliamentary draftsmen. We require here a further protection, rather more than a mere written instruction. A mine manager will not take such an instruction frivolously. We are very anxious that there should be no discordance of responsibility. We are exceedingly anxious that the responsibility shall be seen where it really lies, on the colliery manager, and that that responsibility should be transferred to anyone else only after the most careful protection has been given to the mine manager and the men concerned.
We do not want to be too rough about this, but it really is not good enough to weep tears when men's lives are lost in the pit and then to sweep aside the provisions of practical persons to prevent that kind of thing from happening. I know that there was an argument at first

that we should put the exclusive responsibility on the mine manager. Personally, I was in favour of that.

Mr. Grenfell: So was I.

Mr. Bevan: I was not impressed by the argument that the responsibility of the mine manager in this respect had been at all modified by virtue of the growth of limited liability companies owning collieries and having colliery agents. That was a purely property organisation and had nothing to do with safety. I am thinking of great organisations like Powell Duffryn. They were not more superior to the management because of the safety question but merely because of the commercial organisation of the colliery. The safety responsibility of the manager was still there, although it was eroded by virtue of the hierarchy set above him.
What we want is to restore the prestige and responsibility of the mine manager. Where that cannot be fully restored because the Minister is setting his face against that, we want to secure as much protection as we can for the mine manager because only in that way can we protect the men in the pit. There is no other way and we cannot have any muddle of responsibility here. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will promise to look at this matter in another place and see whether he can find the language which would put the mine manager on firm ground before he carries out the written instructions of his superiors.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I do not think anyone who has been on the Committee would say that I have done anything peremptory on this Bill.

Mr. Bevan: I was talking about today.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I was not peremptory, but was trying to be reasonably brief. Since the right hon. Member has raised these other points, perhaps the House will allow me to make some observations on them.
I have thought a great deal about this problem and have consulted very much with hon. Members. If I could see a further way I could have gone to give protection to the colliery manager, I would have done so. Indeed, it was only after considering every possibility at tremendous length that I reluctantly came


to the conclusion that I could not see how we could make effective progress further.
As a matter of fact, I think it would not be indiscreet to say that the actual suggestion made in this Amendment was one originally thrown out by myself in the course of a general discussion. I was trying to see whether there was a way in which we could make a further protection, but although I did think of this, I came to the conclusion afterwards that it was unwise. The reason was the particular point on which the right hon. Member picked, namely, the question of proper allocation of responsibilities. I hope he will not think I am putting this in any wrong spirit, but the right hon. Member really exposed the unfortunate weakness of the proposal in this Amendment, to which at one time I was attracted, because it places managerial responsibility on the inspector.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: That is the reason I am not pressing, and I am sure my hon. Friends do not press, for this precise language. I think the right hon. Gentleman should exercise his ingenuity to provide for some further action which the manager could take in circumstances where he has taken exception to written instructions.

Mr. Lloyd: I see the point which the right hon. Member has made. If I could think of some other solution to this problem which would help the colliery manager but not do it in a way which would have some other disadvantage like the one contained in this Amendment, I should be prepared to consider it very seriously for incorporation in the Bill in another place. All I can say is that up to the present none of us has been able to find a solution. Therefore, we

have had to fall back upon what we think would work best in practice; that is, to rely on the more confidential relationship with Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at this matter again between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place? As I understand, the kernel of his argument is that this Amendment would be undesirable because it would place managerial responsibility on the inspector. I know that very eminent persons in the inspectorate hold that objection, but I have never seen that it is right. This is the sort of thing which happens between managements and inspectors every day of the week. The only difference is that in this case a manager does not want to obey an order until he has had advice on the safety aspect. I should think the inspector would be the right person to consult in any case, whether he had an order from above or not. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he will consider the matter again.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I will certainly consider it, but it would not be fair to the House to give the impression that I can see a ready way out of this difficulty. In answer to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) it is true that they consult the inspectors. It is quite proper that they should do so, and we would regard it as proper to do so in this case; but it is one thing to consult in the ordinary course of administration, it is another thing to place a statutory responsibility for consultation. That is the difficulty.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 230 Noes, 264.

Division No. 184.]
AYES
[6.19 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Blenkinsop, A.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Albu, A. H.
Bryton, W. R.
Clunie, J.


Allen, Arthur (Boswerth)
Boardman, H.
Coldrick, W.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Collick, P. H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bowden, H. W.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Awbery, S. S.
Bowles, F. G.
Cove, W. G.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Balfour, A.
Brockway, A. F.
Crosland, C. A. R.


Bartley, P.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Crossman, R. H. S.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Daines, P.


Bence, C. R.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Benson, G.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Beswick, F.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Callaghan, L. J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Bing, G. H. C.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Deer, G.


Blackburn, F.
Champion, A. J.
Delargy, H. J.




Dodds, N. N.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Donnelly, D. L.
Lewis, Arthur
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lindgren, G. S.
Short, E. W.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Edelman, M.
MacColl, J. E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
McInnes, J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nets (Caerphilly)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Skeffington, A. M.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McLeavy, F.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Evans, Stanley, (Wednesbury)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Fienburgh, W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Snow, J. W.


Finch, H. J.
Manuel, A. C.
Sorensen, R. W.


Follick, M.
Mason, Roy
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Foot, M. M.
Mayhew, C. P.
Sparks, J. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mellish, R. J.
Steele, T.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Messer, Sir F.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mikardo, Ian
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibson, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Glanville, James
Monslow, W.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moody, A. S.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Swingler, S. T.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Morley, R.
Sylvester, G. O.


Grey, C. F.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewitham, S.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Moyle, A.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hale, Leslie
Mulley, F. W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Thornton, E.


Hamilton, W. W
Oldfield, W. H.
Timmons, J.


Hardy, E. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hargreaves, A.
Orbach, M.
Usborne, H. C.


Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, T.
Viant, S. P.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Warbey, W. N.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Weitzman, D.


Herbison, Miss M.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hobson, C. R.
Pannell, Charles
Wells, William (Walsall)


Holman, P.
Parker, J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Houghton, Douglas
Parkin, B. T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paton, J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearl, T. F.
Wigg, George


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wilkins, W. A.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Popplewell, E.
Willey, F. T.


Hynd, J. B. (Atterclifle)
Porter, G.
Williams, David (Neath)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, J. T. (Westhougton)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Janner, B.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Willis, E. G.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Rankin, John
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Keenan, W.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wyatt, W. L.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Yates, V. F.


Kinley, J.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)



Lawson, G. M.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Ross, William
Mr. Wallace and Mr. Holmes


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Royle, C.





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Black, C. W.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bossom, Sir A. C.
Cole, Norman


Alport, C. J. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A
Colegate, W. A.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Braine, B. R.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Arbuthnot, John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crouch, R. F.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Baldwin, A. E.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Barber, Anthony
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Davidson, Viscountess


Barlow, Sir John
Burden, F. F. A.
Deedes, W. F.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Campbell, Sir David
Donner, Sir P. W.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Gary, Sir Robert
Doughty, C. J, A.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Channon, H.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Birch, Nigel
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Drayton, G. B.


Bishop, F. P.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)







Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Leather, E. H. C.
Remnant, Hon. P


Duthie, W. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ronton, D. L. M.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Eden, J, B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lindsay, Martin
Robertson, Sir David


Finlay, Graeme
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Fisher, Nigel
Llewellyn, D. T.
Robson-Brown, W.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fleteher-Cooke, C.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fort, R.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Russell, R. S.


Foster, John
Longdon, Gilbert
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Scott, R. Donald


Gammans, L. D.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Shepherd, William


Glover, D
McKibbin, A. J.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)


Godber, J. B.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Gough, C. F. H
Maclean, Fitzroy
Smyth, Brig J. G. (Norwood)


Gower, H. R.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Snadden, W. McN.


Graham, Sir Fergus
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Spearman, A. C. M


Grimond, J.
Mascillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Speir, R. M.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Marples, A. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Storey, S.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maude, Angus
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maudling, R.
Studholme, H. G.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Summers, G. S.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mellor, Sir John
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Hay, John
Molson, A. H. E.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Teeling, W.


Heath, Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Nabarro, G. D. N
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Neave, Airey
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholls, Harmar
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Tilney, John


Holland-Martin, C J
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hollis, M. C.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Turner, H. F. L.


Hope, Lord John
Nugent, G. R. H.
Turton, R. H.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon Henry
Nutting, Anthony
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Oakshott, H. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


Horobin, I. M.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Vosper, D. F.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hurd, A. R.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Wall, Major Patrick


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Osborne, C.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Page, R. G.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Iremonger, T. L.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Watkinson, H. A.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Jennings, Sir Roland
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wellwood, W.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Pilkington, Capt. R A
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon L W
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Kaberry, D.
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Kerby, Capt. H B
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wills, G.


Kerr, H. W.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Profumo, J. D.
Wood, Hon. R


Lambton, Viscount
Raikes, Sir Victor



Lancaster, Col. C. G
Rayner, Brig. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Sir Cedric Drewe and




Mr. Redmayne.

Clause 4.—(QUALIFICATIONS OF MINE MANAGERS.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, to leave out "twenty-five," and to insert "twenty-six."

This Clause deals with the age of colliery managers. The effect of this

Amendment, and of a similar Amendment in line 20, is to increase the statutory minimum age from 25 to 26 for managers of mines employing more than 30 persons underground, or, of course, for managers in smaller mines which an inspector certifies must be run by managers with first-class certificates.

6.30 p.m.

The House will recall that when the Bill was originally introduced, the minimum age for managers was put at 25. We considered that that was a reasonable age in all the circumstances. It had stood for the last 40 years or so, and there had been no complaints. However, it was represented to us on Second Reading, and also very strongly in Committee, that owing to the increase in mechanisation, and the increase in the responsibility and the difficulty of mining, it would be desirable to have a higher age. We considered that point and we consulted with great care. Some people wanted more and some wanted less, but it is true to say that, with a greater or lesser degree of reluctance, there has been general agreement now upon the age of 26 as being in all the circumstances the most appropriate. I hope very much that the House will adopt the view which has been taken, because we could have very long arguments about it, though I suggest that all the arguments have already been considered.

Mr. D. Griffiths: I appreciate the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that some had said that the age should be less and others had said that it should be more. I want more. I want to tell the Minister and his advisers that I am still not satisfied. In Committee I offered to compromise in a moderate and temperate way. I suggest that I was more than reasonable when I reduced my figure from 30 to 28. I have always contended that with the difficulties, natural and human, which managers have to meet, especially in large collieries, a man cannot have had the necessary experience at an early age. I suggest that those who have agreed to the Minister's suggestion are wrong. They have erred on the wrong side.
Under modern methods of mining the men who ultimately fill these posts are studying up to the age of 22. This is a salient consideration. I have seen many managers, and how in the name of goodness some of them got certificates I do not know. I have seen some men with first-class certificates to whom I would not give a certificate for a county minor educational examination. These men could not test for gas. It has been my experience as an ordinary man to challenge men who have been certificated

on how to handle a lamp when testing for gas. Of course, I would not say that that is general throughout the industry. A lot has been done under the examining board, and more must be done. I do not speak of the ordinary shotfirer, or the deputy, and so on, but of one who holds the key position governing the life and well-being of thousands of men.
I am most disappointed that some of our friends on the other side of the industry have succumbed to the wishes or to the dictates of the Minister and his advisers. The Amendment is unfair. Many of these young men will have had no practical experience. Before the men in the coalfields can appoint a man to be their representative and to inspect the workings, he must have had five years' practical experience. Under the Amendment a man can get a first-class certificate and then be permitted to have control of the life and well-being, socially, administratively, industrially, and so on, of many men, at the age of 26. A man can be certificated and have that responsibility without having had any practical experience.
There was a weakness in the 1911 Act, and I contend that there is also one here. There is no other industry like mining. There is no industry so difficult or dangerous. It is unfair and unfitting that while a man on the workman's side must have had five years' experience, quite apart from his schooling, a man can have merely a theoretical knowledge of the industry without any practical experience and can then take a post like this at the age of 26. In many cases the man will not be capable of fulfilling the duties involved. I oppose the Amendment. I am very sorry that the Minister did not accept the age of 28.

Colonel C. G. Lancaster: As the Parliamentary Secretary said, the matter was discussed on Second Reading and at some length in Committee. I took the view in Committee that on the whole, the age of 25 was not sufficient, and to that extent I am glad that it has been suggested that the figure should be raised to 26. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths). I am not completely happy about 26, although I accept the Amendment.
What has a certificated man done by the age of 25 or 26? With the raising


of the age at which he can go underground, he will not go underground until he is 18. After a year or so underground he will be selected to go to a vocational training school, where he will spend another 18 months or so learning the theory and, in a small way, the practical side of the business. If he does well he will be selected to have a scholarship to a mining university, where he will do a theoretical course from which he will emerge at about the age of 23. He then has two years' practical experience—now three years—before being selected as a colliery manager. That is a very short time.
His counterpart, the university student, probably emerges from his university at about the age of 23 also. He requires somewhat more practical experience than the boy who has risen from working in the pit. In that case also he is really not very well fitted at the age of 26 to take charge of a large colliery or indeed of any colliery. We must remember the psychological aspect. Thinking of their safety, men will be bound to ask how much practical experience the young man has if he is to look after their lives, apart from looking after the pit in general.
It must be obvious from the discussions which have taken place that the age of 26 must be the very youngest at which anyone can be considered as a colliery manager. This will not mean that we shall lose the valuable services of a particularly brilliant young man, for there are plenty of other jobs that he can do as a certificated manager before he takes on a post as colliery manager. There is work in the planning department, where he can gain a great deal of experience and can be most usefully employed in the meantime.
It may interest hon. Members opposite to know that, since taking this attitude, I have discussed the matter with a number of young men whom I appointed to be managers. I had always taken the view that the desirable age for that post was 28. Most of those young men have since risen to very giddy heights within the National Coal Board. They all agree that it was wise to delay their promotion to colliery managers until about the age of 28. They were bright young men. If I had to live my life over again, I

should still take the view that I did then. After all, a man of 28 is not really very old.
Although for the purposes of the Bill the statutory minimum of 26 will, I believe, be practically sound, I hope that the National Coal Board in its wisdom will see to it that men are 27 or 28 before they are appointed colliery managers.

Mr. T. Brown: The hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) has been courageous enough both during the Committee stage and on Report to speak against the proposed minimum age for mine managers.
The reason why I am opposed to the proposed minimum age is the changing circumstances which have manifested themselves at many pits within the past 25 years. Years ago, it was a very big pit which employed 300 or 400 men, but we now have pits employing up to 3,000 men. From the point of view of mechanisation and of handling men, the situation has changed considerably.
One fact which was brought out during the Committee stage in our discussions on this aspect of the Bill was that we have raised the school-leaving age by a year and are raising the age limit in respect of young men going underground. The latter change is a step in the right direction, but it prevents the young man from getting his experience as early as young men used to get their experience in days gone by.
6.45 p.m.
There is another aspect which the Opposition, and particularly hon. Members from coalfields, must bear in mind. A man of 26 cannot understand the psychology of the miner. Any man who is to be successful in the mining industry, as a mine manager, as an under-manager or even as a checkweighman, must have a profound understanding of the psychology of the miner. No matter how academically qualified a young man may be, it is impossible for him, in the short period suggested, to appreciate human relationships with the men in the pits as they should be.
I remember a young man with very brilliant academic qualifications—none greater—entering the coal industry. He went to a large colliery and, like a new broom, began to sweep clean. He did


his best in every conceivable way. Within a few months it was found that he had caused more loss of production than any mine manager who had preceded him. This was not because he did not possess engineering and other qualifications. It was because he did not understand the psychology of the miner. It was my painful duty to meet him on many occasions and sometimes to put him in his place, for the colliery might otherwise have stopped for all time. Because this young man, with his brilliant academic qualifications, did not understand the men in the pits, he upset the colliery more than any man who had ever been employed there.
As a result of our intervention and our kindly talks with him, he took the road which led to success. It may surprise hon. Members to learn that today that young man is the National Production Officer for the Coal Board. There we have an example to show that a young man who is moulded in the right way and gains an understanding of human relationships, proves to be much more successful than he would otherwise be.
I will not suggest what the age should be. That is a matter for the Minister and the Coal Board. If we do not put a specific age in the Bill, I think that the Board will see the wisdom of appointing as managers men who have more experience than they are likely to have obtained at 26. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde and my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths) that 28 should be the minimum age. If the Minister would agree with us about the age of 28 before the Bill goes to another place, that would give us a greater degree of contentment, if not satisfaction.

Mr. T. Fraser: I wonder whether the Minister can tell us anything about the practice of the National Coal Board which would help us to appreciate the Amendment and to accept the age limit which is suggested.
I am sure that the Minister will appreciate the anxieties of some of my hon. Friends lest a young man of 26 should be given the job of manager in a large colliery employing 3,000 or 4,000 men. None of us would consider that a man of 26 would have the experience to fit him for the job. I do not think that the

Board would dream of appointing a man of 26 to take charge of a colliery employing 3,000 or 4,000 men.
I should think it is the exception rather than the rule, even today, for young men to be appointed colliery managers at the age of 26, but I do not know. It does not happen in my own area, and I wonder whether the Minister has any statistics about it, particularly as concerning the practice of the Board. Here, we are simply laying down a minimum age at which a person can be employed as a colliery manager.
May I add that, when the 1911 Act was going through this House, it was desirable for Parliament to determine a minimum age. In those days, most of our collieries in this country were comparatively small and had a single owner. They were collieries owned either by very small companies or by private persons, many of them being one-owner collieries. It was understandable that, in many cases, the owner's son was trained to be the colliery manager, and, when he attained the age of 25, very often he became the manager of the colliery. If we had not had a minimum age of 25, it might well have been that we should have had young men of 20 being appointed to the management of a colliery.
Things have changed altogether, and I do not think there should be any danger today of young men who are too immature being given a responsible job in the mining industry. The Minister should tell us something about the practice of the National Coal Board, because that might allay the fears of some of my hon. Friends. If he cannot do that, no doubt, my hon. Friends will continue to feel very concerned lest a man who, at the age of 26 is still inexperienced, should be given the responsibility of managing a colliery at which 3,000 workers are employed.

Mr. John Timmons: This is a matter on which I feel very strongly. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has asked the Minister about the methods of appointment, but I have had some experience of this matter, and I want to point out to the Minister that the people who are colliery managers today are men who came from the coal face, at which they spent most of their previous working lives.


and had received their training at technical colleges in the evenings.
I had one experience concerning a man who got a job as manager at a colliery where I was checkweighman, and I remember that, on one occasion, about 30 miners were entombed. I received a telephone message, and I rushed off to the colliery, where I found that this young fellow of 26 or 27 did not know the way to start the job of extricating these men from the place in which they were trapped. Had it not been for the wiser and more experienced men at the colliery, it is very doubtful whether those men would ever have been got out of the pit.
The point that I want to make is that, from my own experience and knowledge, it is not a question of a man having the capacity for the job or being the right age; it depends on the number of friends one has on the executive of the National Coal Board. That is the danger, and there are many people employed by the Board not because of their capacity to do the job, but because they were the friends of private enterprise in the mining industry when the Board took it over. It has become more or less a family concern, into which people are being brought, not because of their capacity or ability to do the job, but simply because they have uncles, friends or relatives who have big jobs on the Board. That is the danger that I see.
Personally, I would not agree to the appointment of colliery manager being given to young men unless they had had at least five years' experience as under-manager. I therefore hope that the Minister will give further consideration to the matter.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: If I may have the leave of the House to reply to the debate, may I remind hon. Members that I indicated in my opening remarks that I was quite certain that, if the debate should continue, we would hear a great many interesting arguments from both sides of the House and in many directions, and that has been the case.
I want to emphasise to the House that this age of 26 is a statutory minimum. It is the fact that no person below the age of 26 can be made a colliery manager, and that represents an advance of one year on what has been the statutory minimum for the last 40-odd years. With

regard to what the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Timmons) said, I do not think he need have any anxieties as far as the coal mines are concerned, on the score of nepotism. I do not think cases can arise in which the owners' sons will be appointed to positions for which they do not possess the necessary qualifications.
In reply to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Col. Lancaster), it is not to be expected—and I can tell the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) that it is not the practice—of the National Coal Board to appoint young men to manage big collieries. It is recognised that it is a part of their essential training, if they are to become managers of big collieries, that they must start as managers of small collieries.
Moreover they cannot become colliery managers or be certificated without having had practical training. Just as in the Merchant Navy a man can get his qualifications and his "ticket" at the age, I think, of 21 or 22, at which age no one would dream of placing him in command of the "Queen Elizabeth," although, strictly speaking, one would be entitled to do it, so in the coal industry no one would dream of putting a person with the bare minimum statutory qualifications in command of a big colliery.
I hope the House will accept that point of view, and will accept the age of 26, to which we have given very great consideration and on which we have had discussions with all the people who we thought could help in the matter. From all these discussions, we believe that it is the right age to insert in the Bill.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think the debate has shown that there is a very strong case in principle for what we said in Committee, although, from my personal experience, I must say that one of the ablest managers of a colliery whom I have known was only 25 years of age. He was appointed by the National Coal Board, and he had started work as a pit boy and had studied at evening classes and later at a university. The miners in the pit were extremely proud of him and had great confidence in him, but that was an exceptional case.
In principle, it ought not to happen, and we think that it is wrong. No doubt, it will very rarely happen that the Board will appoint such men, but this is only


a statutory minimum, and, since the Government have given us one year, for that reason we will not vote against the Amendment, though we hope that the Minister will again reconsider the matter, if he can.

Amendment agreed to.

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Redmayne]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

STROUDWATER NAVIGATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

7.0 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: I beg to move to leave out "now," and at the end of the Question to add, "upon this day three months."
It is unusual for a Private Bill to be opposed in this House on Second Reading, but I assure the House that this step has not been taken by my hon. Friends and myself without very careful consideration and very weighty reasons. It has been suggested that the right thing to do was to allow the Bill to be presented as is usual and to argue the case out in Committee, but our objections to the Bill are profound and weighty, and are objections of principle. It is difficult to sustain objection of principle in Committee where the procedure allows only the grievances of individuals to be put.
Our main objection is that it is wrong in principle to allow a statutory company to divest itself of some of its statutory responsibilities and, at the same time, to retain the right to draw income, make profits and to distribute those profits, if not to the shareholders at any rate to the directors of the company. That is the situation in regard to this particular company. It is a statutory company, and as such is not obliged to publish its balance sheet or its list of shareholders, or to give the public access to information about directors, shareholders and assets. It is well known that should the company be fortunate enough to smuggle through the provisions of the Bill without exposure

and protest, it would be in the very happy position of having no longer any obligation to keep up the waterway.
There is a provision in the Bill by which the company can ask the rural district councils to be good enough to contribute towards the cost of clearing the waterway, which has become silted up while the company can go on drawing income from selling water and from the rents of its properties, which are quite considerable. The income from the sale of water to industrial organisations is also quite considerable. It is known, for instance, that the company sells water to the British Transport Commission for topping up the ship canal which goes from Gloucester to Sheerness. The amount that it receives for that service is probably between £800 and £1,500 a year—merely for the privilege of allowing its own water to trickle into the ship canal. No undertaking of any kind set up under statute should be allowed to divest itself of responsibility by a Private Bill of this nature and, at the same time, retain its profits and assets.
Secondly, we submit that it is wrong to abandon the waterway by this procedure. It is probably wrong to close a waterway at all. Public feeling on the subject of waterways has been roused very much for years. The public is beginning to be shocked at the way in which this national heritage has been neglected and allowed to be abandoned and, in some cases, virtually strangled through competitive interests. That theme will no doubt be taken up by other hon. Members later.
I want to recall that as recently as last year a Private Bill entitled "The Rochdale Canal Bill" came before the Private Bill Committee of this House and the Chairman of the Committee, in reporting to the House, said:
The Committee consider that the whole question of the future of canals should be dealt with by public legislation, following a general inquiry into the matter. The findings of the Committee on these Bills"—
he was referring to the Rochdale Canal Bill and another Private Bin—
should not prejudice any decision which may be arrived art as the result of such inquiry or be taken to create procedures for the treatment by Private Bill Committees of future bills dealing with canals.


That is a fair and clear enough warning by Members of the Committee that although they would let that Bill through they wished to make their protest that this was not the right way to do it.
Public opinion on the future of canals has gained strength and has become more informed in the past 12 months. The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has indicated that the whole matter should be the subject of a great survey. I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. I hope that nothing I have said in opposing the Bill will put him into the embarrassing position of having to say something which is in contradiction to or conflicts with the general view of his Ministry that the future of inland waterways should be a subject of survey and public legislation.
Thirdly, we submit that it is wrong to take irrevocable steps in the case of this company which make impossible a later opening of the waterway either for pleasure or commercial purposes. The pressure that has been put on to get the Bill through has, oddly enough, come from a certain department of the county council, which has debated the matter in its Committee. The county council refused to submit to inquiry the objections which were put forward by the local urban district council a couple of years ago.
One department of the county council has made up its mind that the easiest way of getting over its highway difficulties is for this canal to be abandoned so that it can then push the bridges down, particularly a hump-backed bridge in the village where I live. It has been a particular target of criticism and is commonly referred to locally as a "death trap." Hon. Members will readily recognise that it often happens in these cases that there has never been an accident at this spot, although hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent in widening trunk roads, where the corpses pile up with unbroken regularity.
To show how much of a death trap this bridge is, let me add that this very bridge is scheduled by the county council under Section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act to be preserved. On the one hand the council desires to

push the bridge down and, on the other hand, to keep it up. One of the arguments is that it is much cheaper to push the bridge down and to make a flat bridge so as to render possible easy passage of the canal. It is very much open to debate whether it is cheaper to do it that way. When there was a storm of local protest recently I got information from a local engineer who is a successful designer, and who himself designed one of the bridges carrying a trunk road many years ago. He says that that bridge was made for £1,250 and that in these days of increased costs of labour and materials he could not build another at that price. Another way will have to be found, and I hope that the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation will pay attention to the costs of the alternatives.
I hope that the Ministry will ask the county council to look not at one particular sector of their costs, but at all their costs. The Gloucestershire County Council has to raise about £1,500 every year to fight a losing battle against this canal company. One realises then that it is not fair to say that a certain bridge over the waterway costs only £1,500. If £1,500 a year has to be spent on cutting down weeds, it might be better to spend that money in interest on borrowed money with which to construct decent bridges which would permit the passage of occasional craft, because that, of course, is the surest and safest way of keeping a waterway clear of weeds.
Fourthly, we think it wrong, on the subject of this waterway, to ignore local opinion which has been organising itself very effectively during the last few months as the implications of the Bill have become more clear. Some people in the neighbourhood remember nostalgically when it was a local amenity. It is nearly 40 years ago since I first fell into it, and I learned to swim there.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Will my hon. Friend explain when it was last used for navigation purposes?

Mr. Parkin: It was last used during the war. I am not certain which year, but it was possibly 1942.

Major W. Hicks Beach: In fact, the last time that it was used by one craft was in 1941.

Mr. Parkin: I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving the date with such accuracy. No doubt he will also confirm that on that occasion the man who had previously used horse-drawn barges decided to change over to power-driven barges. He asked for an assurance from the company that it would clear the waterway. It gave him that assurance, but did nothing about it. He took his boat down the waterway and his propellor was fouled by the weeds. He was the last man to attempt to get through.
It is now clear from expert local opinion, which backs up my case, that this is not a question of something which was abandoned a long time ago, or a question of something which has no commercial future. I took the very tentative line of the commercial future of this waterway. I thought that it would be quite possible, with the money that could be obtained from through craft and from the mooring of house boats, combined with the income which accrues from the sale of the water and the rates on the properties, to restore it as an amenity, and that it would be possible to take over this undertaking and to carry out all that was required without any burden falling upon the ratepayers.
I am now fortified in that belief by a succession of opinions from local industrialists who say they think that, if restored, the waterway would have a commercial future. Of course, the Stroud Valley is not negligible as an industrial centre.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: ): As one completely ignorant of the whole question, would the hon. Gentleman tell me when, roughly, the canal was last in constant or commercial use?

Mr. Parkin: I suppose that it was the falling off of the horse-drawn coal barges in the 1930s which marked the end of the active period. At the time of the war, there was no opportunity to back up the switch-over from horse-drawn to power-driven boats, so the chance was lost and the weeds grew. The difficulties have not since been overcome.
The commercial future of the waterway cannot be viewed without reservations, because, of course, there can be no certainty about these things until the waterway is actually in operation, and one cannot get anyone to guarantee that

they would use it. However, I have seen one very interesting quotation from a canal carrying company for transporting goods from Manchester to Stroud based on the assumption that the waterway would open. The cost would be about one-seventh of that of transporting the goods by rail. Of course, that is very big money when one thinks in terms of barge loads. There is a very considerable amount to be saved on a single barge load which goes through the waterway, and, consequently, the cost of restoring locks should be considered in relation to the profits that could be earned.
One of the executives of a big oil-distributing firm in this country has publicly expressed himself against the Bill, and in favour of the proposal to create a trust. I do not wish to embarrass the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Sir R. Perkins) tonight, because I know how difficult it is when one has formally commited oneself to a certain line. However, I would remind him that the person to whom I am referring is a former member of the constituency Conservative Association. Therefore, it will be seen that this is certainly an all-party matter in the locality. Local opinion has formed itself into an energetic committee, a trust in embryo, ready to operate.
The most disgraceful thing about this Bill is the way in which the company of proprietors, as they should properly be called, ignore any attempt to discuss an alternative to this Bill. The greatest publicity has been given to the activities of the committee, which is suggesting appealing for an opportunity to discuss the matter. There is no doubt that the money can be raised, and since the company remains so silent about its management, its assets and its activities, it must not complain if the picture presented to the public is that of a dispirited, out-of-date and very old group of people, very small in number, meeting together in the back office of the local lawyer and sharing out the rents of dilapidated cottages and the money received from the selling of dirty water, and doing nothing else whatever.
At the other end, we have people of all parties anxious to do something in the public interest. In these days, movements of this kind—spontaneous, voluntary and public-spirited—should not


lightly be disregarded. I ask the House to give these local people a chance to show what they can do—and to follow the guidance offered and the example given through the Inland Waterways Association—through the formation of a non-profit making trust set up to look after this important part of our national heritage until we have had time to survey the whole problem and to come to a decision on the future of our waterways in the national interest.
In these circumstances, I make no apology for my part in opposing the passage of this Bill. I think it is right that it should be opposed, and that I should ask for the protection of the House on behalf of those who want to do their bit for the amenities and the prosperity of their locality.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Garner Evans: It is not often that I agree with the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), but on this issue I agree with every word that he has said. I do not like these abandonment Acts. We have had far too many of them, and most of them have slipped through this House completely unnoticed. For instance, due to the abandonment Acts which slipped through this House in 1943, we have now lost over 400 miles of navigable waterways. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Paddington, North for having raised the matter on the Floor of the House.
It is particularly unfortunate that the promoters of this Bill should be trying to slip it through at the present time. I know that the Minister who is here tonight is most sympathetic to the whole canal and inland waterways issue. We are all grateful to him for having got the British Transport Commission to set up an inquiry into the future of our canals, and not only to investigate the commercial use of the canals but to decide what is to be done with those which are no longer used for commercial purposes.
I beg the Minister not to allow this Second Reading of this Bill before we have the result of that inquiry. It would be absolutely scandalous to do so. If the inquiry finds that greater commercial use can be made of those neglected waterways, or that some of them, though not very useful for commercial traffic, have an enormous amenity and pleasure value

to the community, would we not look a lot of fools to have passed this Bill?
I turn for a moment to the Bill itself. I am most grateful to its promoters for having circulated to some, but not to all, hon. Members a statement concerning the Bill. Stroudwater Navigation Bill—how it can be called a navigation Bill I do not know. It is a stagnation, not a navigation, Bill. Nevertheless that is its title. This statement is interesting:
The main provisions of the Bill are to release the company from their obligation to keep the Stroudwater Canal open for navigation;
The main purpose of the Bill is to release the company from its obligation. It goes on:
…to provide that the county council shall immediately take over the responsibility for the repair…of bridges.…
Then:
To empower the company to sell the water.
This is rather nice. We are to say, "Release the company from its obligations, throw those obligations on the county council, and then allow the company to keep the profits." Really, the Gloucester County Council is buying a pig in a poke. I do not think that the people in that county know what is going on. To say that the county council is buying a pig in a poke is wrong. What it is buying is a part-share in a cow. The county shares responsibility for the top end and the company keeps the other. The county is to feed the beast and the company will continue to get in profits from the more profitable end of the animal.
The document goes on to say:
For very many years the Stroudwater Canal Las not been used by waterborne traffic of any kind. …
Why? Because this company, which is now asking us to support this Bill, has failed to live up to its obligations. It was obliged under several Acts of Parliament to maintain this as a navigable waterway. It has not lived up to its obligations and now has the effrontery to say to this House, "Because we have not lived up to our obligations, the thing is now impossible, and because it is impossible we want you to close it down."
We have had this sort of argument before. The old railway companies used


it and it has been used by the British Transport Commission. Some hon. Members will remember the case of the Welsh section of the Shropshire Union Canal. In 1937 there was a comparatively small breach in the bank of the Shropshire Union Canal between Newtown and Welshpool. It was a small breach which could have been repaired quite easily in a matter of hours and at little cost. The local people wanted to know what to do and rang up Crewe. Crewe said, "This is all right, do not do anything at all about it. Shut off the water from the canal, otherwise it will become dangerous."
That was one of the most beautiful sections of canal in the country. It was a lovely stretch—almost as good as that which goes through my own home town of Llangollen. They closed the canal to traffic. A couple of working boats were left above the breach and a boatbuilder, a most useful man, was put out of business. Then, in 1943, the L.M.S. came to this House when our attention was diverted—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Some of us were in the desert and not thinking about canals. The water rats were almost as busy as the Desert Rats. In 1943 the L.M.S. had the effrontery to come and say, "We must abandon the canal because there is no traffic upon it." How could there be traffic upon it when there was no water in it? This Bill is an example of the same thing.
The brief goes on to say:
…the use of the Canal for navigation would not be economic.
Who says so? The canal company itself finds it very useful and economic for the sale of water, but for navigation purposes they say that it would not be economical. So far as I know, no impartial survey has ever been made to find out whether it would be economic to use that canal again. I have a letter from one of the biggest industrialists in Stroud saying:
We understand that the matter of the Stroudwater Navigation comes before the House of Commons tomorrow and we think a full inquiry into its usefulness ought to be made before this project is finally abandoned, as in the years past this has proved of the greatest value to the business community in Stroud.
I do not know whether or not there is a commercial future for this canal, but

at least we should have an inquiry before we lightheartedly abandon this waterway.

Sir Herbert Williams: Might I suggest that one way of getting an inquiry is to give the Bill a Second Reading so that it can be examined upstairs?

Mr. Garner Evans: I take the point, but if the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) had listened earlier, he would have known that it is not only on that point that we are opposing the Bill but that many of us object on grounds of principle as well. I do not see why the time of hon. Members should be taken up, and money spent, in sending this Bill upstairs when really what we want is a clear-cut decision to get the Bill chucked out tonight.
The next point the company make is:
The Bill is…supported by…the Gloucester County Council, the Stroud Urban District Council, the Stroud Rural District Council, and the Gloucester Rural District Council. Their main concern is one of road safety.

Sir Harold Webbe: By people who know something about it.

Mr. Garner Evans: By people who may know something about it, but it is very interesting that there has not been one single public discussion in the Gloucester County Council—not one. Much has been said in committee but the ratepayers of Gloucestershire—from the leadership given by their county council—know nothing about the pros and cons of this Bill. As for the Stroud Rural District Council, who have been asked to take on certain responsibilities in connection with this canal, there has not been a single public discussion in that council until last Friday night.
It is rather strange that the promoters are now using as an argument that the people of Gloucestershire are strongly in favour of this Bill on the grounds of road safety. I cannot imagine anything more absurd. There may be one or two hump-backed bridges, which can be removed, but surely the more traffic that is taken off the roads and put on the inland waterways of the country, the better it will be for road safety. A pair of barges can carry the contents of five


lorries, and I should have thought that we in this House who are interested in road safety would have been doing everything in our power to permit the use of inland waterways and not giving our support to Measures of this kind.
The hon. Member for Paddington, North referred to local opinion on this matter. There is in Stroud and the surrounding district a body of people prepared to take over this water, develop it and use it for amenity purposes, for pleasure craft and the like, and to investigate the possibilities of its use commercially. Knowing those facts, I beg of this House to oppose this Bill.

7.32 p.m.

Sir Robert Perkins: I am aware of the almost fanatical sincerity of the Inland Waterways Association. I doubt whether tonight, hon. Members really know the facts about this canal, and I hope that when I have told them the facts they will agree to let this Measure go upstairs to be examined by an impartial Committee of this House so that all the facts can be explored.
This Bill has come from another place, where it was passed without a word of criticism or opposition. This canal was deliberately excluded from the nationalisation Act because at that time it was obviously a liability, and the British Transport Commission did not want to assume that liability. The Bill does not provide, as I believe some hon. Members think it does, for the complete abandonment of this canal. All it does is to free the company from the obligation to keep it open for navigation.
The position today is that, in theory, this canal is open for navigation, but, in fact, it is closed, and all that the Bill does is to legalise the present position. The company will remain responsible for all other existing liabilities. It will remain responsible for leakage, aqueducts, the towpath, culverts, drains, maintaining the canal bank and supplying certain factories with water.
In the distant past this canal was a vital part of the canal structure of this country. It was part of the connecting link in the canal system between the River Severn and the River Thames. A

barge could enter this canal from the River Severn, go up to Stroud, then change over to another canal through a tunnel under the Cotswold Hills into your constituency, Mr. Speaker, and finally, end up in the River Thames. That tunnel is 2¼ miles long, and in those days the bargees used to lie on their backs and push with their feet against the roof and against the sides to get the barge through the tunnel. The proprietors of the canal in those days had great foresight and tried to look after their bargees, and they provided a convenient public house at each end of the canal so that they could stoke up both before and after a journey.
This section which goes from Stroud to the Thames was abandoned over 30 years ago. It was abandoned because it leaked. The county council spent a small fortune trying to stop those leaks, but they failed, and the last barge went through that tunnel in 1911. The last man to go through into that tunnel was a friend of mine who did it in a canvas canoe just before the last war, and he reported that he could only go in a very short distance because the roof had fallen in.
To restore that link in this important connection between the Severn and the Thames would mean rebuilding that tunnel right under the Cotswold Hills at a vast expense running, no doubt, into millions of pounds. It seems only sensible that if this connecting link is broken, the other link has very little justification today because it is impossible, and it never can be possible, to take a barge again from the Severn to the Thames by that method. Both ends of the remaining section which we are talking about tonight—that is the section from Stroud to the Severn—are blocked, although there is one exit into a neighbouring and prosperous canal.
Except for one short length at the Severn end, which is to be taken over by the British Transport Commission, the rest of this canal is completely derelict. The lock gates are just falling to pieces. The sluices will not work and cannot be made to work. If ever this canal is to be put into operation again, the sluices and the locks must be renewed. The canal is badly silted up. It is smothered with weeds and, in fact, is a breeding ground for flies.

Mr. John Baird: If this canal is abandoned, will it no longer be a breeding ground for flies?

Sir R. Perkins: The section to which I am referring is not abandoned. It is the section that goes from Stroud to the Thames which was abandoned 30 years ago. This particular section has not been abandoned, nor will it be if this Bill passes tonight.
There was some argument just now about when the last barge went through. The actual date was 27th May, 1941, when it took 10 tons of coal to the gas company. Before that no barge had been through for three years, and today it is impossible for any barge or even a canoe to get up the full length of this canal because of the silt, weeds and lack of water. I believe that this canal can never again be used commercially.
One very good suggestion has been made which appealed to me. It was pointed out to me that in the past, after the break in the link in the Thames to Stroud section, the canal carried on for a comparatively short time and supplied a local cloth factory and the local gas works with coal and took away tar from the gas works.

Mr. M. Follick: When was the canal built?

Sir R. Perkins: It was built about 160 years ago. I felt that if we could persuade the local gas board to import coal once again we should have an opportunity of reviving the canal. I went to a great deal of trouble in this matter, and wrote to the South-Western Gas Board to find out if this were possible, and it replied as follows:
It is the Board's intention to close down the Stroud gas production plant as soon as arrangements can be made for the delivery of the necessary pipes to integrate Stroud with Gloucester.
This old stand-by, which provided for the traffic in the past, has now gone. There can be no hope of future traffic from the gas works, or, as far as I know, from any other source.
Immediately upon the passing of the Bill the county council is prepared to take over and modernise the eight bridges which are carrying county roads. The canal company is responsible for this at the moment, and has to maintain them in

the condition in which they were 160 years ago. The result is that they are totally unsuited for modern traffic, and some are a danger to the public. Two bridges, in particular, are giving the county council great anxiety. One, which has already been referred to, is at Stone-house, and is typical of the canal bridge of 160 years ago. It is narrow and humpbacked. It is exactly nine feet wide, and there is no footpath. There is also a complete absence of visibility from one side to the other. Only last Friday I was very nearly hit by a cyclist as I went over it.
The population in this area is rapidly increasing, and, as a result of recent housing developments—which the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) knows all about—a large number of children use this bridge on their way to and from school. It is obvious to anyone who knows the bridge that with a mob of children going across it a fatal accident is bound to occur one day. I approached the local road safety committee on the subject. This body is very perturbed about it and has written to me. saying:
There is great need for widening and levelling.
If the Bill is passed that bridge can and will be replaced this year. Surely it is wiser to prevent an accident to a child rather than to wait and be wise after the event.
The second bridge which is causing anxiety is situated at Whitminster. It is in poor condition, and its use is prohibited to both lorries and buses. In my constituency there is very great local feeling about the bridge, and this has been accentuated by a fatal accident which occurred on a bridge over a neighbouring canal. The bridge collapsed under the overladen weight of a lorry and the unfortunate driver was drowned. That bridge was in a far better condition than the one at Whitminster, which the county council is most anxious to modernise this year, if possible.

Mr. Parkin: I am sure the hon. Member will give the House figures showing the comparative cost of replacing these bridges by flat bridges and the ordinary type of swing bridge, which can be opened and can carry traffic. As the hon. Member knows, there is ample space for such bridges to be installed. His own


carelessness at the hump-backed bridge at Stonehouse is now becoming famous. This is the second time he has almost had an accident there. The first occasion arose when my wife was taking a traffic census there, on behalf of the local parish council.

Sir R. Perkins: I am very glad that a traffic census was taken. About two years ago the local parish council sent me figures of that census, and they were certainly alarming.
It will be suggested that the responsibility for these bridges lies with the company, which is quite true. It might also be suggested that the company should modernise the bridges. That is a most praiseworthy suggestion, but if anyone takes a look at the balance sheet of the company—which I have here and will gladly pass to anyone who is interested—he will see that it is, unfortunately, absolutely and utterly impossible for the company to adapt the bridges to make them suitable for present-day traffic. It could not even maintain the bridges for the traffic of 160 years ago.
As my hon. Friend has said, the county council is willing to take over all eight bridges, provided that it can legally replace them with modern, flat-type bridges. It is not prepared to pay the extra sum involved in building either hump-backed or swing bridges. These are the county council's exact words to me:
Any proposal to renew existing humpbacked or swing bridges is impracticable. The council will not under any circumstances agree to reconstruct any of these bridges except on modern lines.
I agree with the council, because the difference in cost is vast. A complete estimate for repairing all six bridges has been given to me by the county council.
I will not give the full details, but I will summarise them. Nothing need be done in the case of two bridges, because there is little or no traffic over them. There is no hurry about them. If the other six were to be modernised according to modern standards—which means that they would be level bridges—the cost of all six would be £5,500. If the council has to put up hump-backed or swing bridges the cost for all six immediately goes up to £30,000, which is

five-and-a-half times as much. In the case of the bridge at Stonehouse, the cost would rise from £2,500 to £10,000, which is four times as much.
The reason for that vast increase is very simple. A hump-backed bridge merely goes straight up and down, and if the county council had to build a humpbacked bridge it would have to build up the road for 50 yards on each side to ensure visibility over the bridge. I agree with the county council in this matter. It is wrong that ratepayers should be asked to pay about £25,000 more to build obsolete bridges so that hypothetical barges might travel along a dry canal. The county council is willing to take over these bridges at once, but it cannot and will not move until the Bill becomes law.

Mr. David Jones: If this is to be a dry canal how can the company carry out its obligations to supply water to the British Transport Commission and to other undertakings on its banks?

Sir R. Perkins: There is no proposal to drain the canal. Some parts of it are dry, but other parts contain water, which is used to supply four or five factories as well as the Commission. I meant to say that the canal is dry in parts.
Hon. Members on that side of the House and on this are interested in seeing the building of the Severn Bridge. I am myself. I put it in my Election address in 1935. The scheme to build the Severn Bridge means building a new motor road from the Midlands to the bridge. That motor road will cross the canal at Whitminster. If this Bill does not go through the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, when it builds the road, will have either to build a hump in the middle of it or build a swing bridge. In either case the cost of the road will go up substantially and either the hump or the swing bridge will spoil the road. By passing this Bill we shall remove one of the many obstacles in the way of building the Severn Bridge in the future.
I know there are many objections, and that there are many alternatives suggested. I hope I have already given the Inland Waterways Association credit, when I said that I know that they are fanatically sincere. Let me examine the alternative suggestions and objections. The first comes from the owners of 43 little boats moored at the Severn end of the canal.


They are worried about their future if the scheme is taken over by the British Transport Commission. I was very sympathetic with them, and I have been in contact with the Commission to see how they will come out in the future. The Commission has written to me thus:
Unless circumstances change it is the present intention that the mooring of craft in this part of the canal will be allowed to continue.
So I do not think that those people in their little boats down on the banks of the Severn have anything for the present, at any rate, to worry about.
A suggestion that has been made is that the local authorities should take over the whole length of this canal and turn it into a swimming pool or pleasure park, or something of that kind. We already have a first-class swimming pool in Stroud; we have already a first-class pleasure park. I have approached all the local authorities, and every one has flatly refused to touch it. I point out to the House that there is a permissive Clause, Clause 7, which gives power to any of these local authorities, should any of them in future change their minds, to take over part of the canal or the whole of the canal.
Another suggestion is a very attractive one to me. It has been put forward by the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin). It is that there should be some kind of trust set up to take over the canal. I was very attracted by that, but I reluctantly concluded that it is just not possible because of the vast cost involved. If the Bill is passed some such trust may be set up. I certainly shall not oppose it. If this Bill fails any trust that is set up will automatically have to assume full liability for all those eight bridges at a cost of about £30,000.
I see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) shaking his head. I know he is thinking that the county council will automatically weigh in, that the county council will, help. There is the precedent of the Roch-dale Canal, a Bill in connection with which has already been mentioned and passed by this House. It is well to remember that in that case the local council took over the bridges from the county council, and it was paid a large sum in compensation for doing it.
I am confident that the county council will stand its corner in this matter. I am absolutely confident that it will pay the full cost of the level bridges at £5,500, but the remaining £24,500 will automatically have to be shouldered by any trust that takes over from the canal company.
That is not the whole story. The high cost of restoring the canal is a vital factor. Nobody knows for certain what it will cost, but a firm of consulting engineers, Sir Ernest Halcrow and Partners, has been called in, and puts the figure at £143,000. Add to that approximately £25,000 and we get a figure of £168,000. I do not mind whether it is £150,000 or is £250,000, I do not believe that any such sum can possibly be raised from local sources in those Stroud valleys to modernise this canal. Consequently, I reluctantly conclude that with the best will in the world a trust is impracticable today. However, if the Bill goes through and the liability for restoring the canal to its original purpose is removed, then I think there may well be some useful purpose to be served by some such trust.
Meanwhile, if we fail tonight and this Bill does not go through the Inland Waterways Association in my constituency will do a lot of talking; it will probably form a trust; but it will not get the money and it will not take any positive or effective action. While it is talking my constituents will have to suffer. I am absolutely certain that accidents will occur, and that the conditions of the canal will deteriorate. Very soon it will be abandoned and the ratepayers will have to take it over as an open sewer.
For two years I have been in negotiation on this subject with 16 local public bodies. I have brought into the consultations every one of the principal local elected bodies, and this Bill has been agreed by them all. I got agreement only three months ago. It has been agreed by Stroud Rural District Council, Stroud Urban District Council, Gloucester Rural District Council, Gloucester County Council, Gloucester City Corporation, the British Transport Commission, Stroud and District Water Board and the Severn River Board.
Every one of those organisations is in complete agreement that this is the only practicable solution of this problem, so I ask the House to back up the local,


elected representatives of the people and send this Bill upstairs so that it may be examined by an impartial tribunal.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: The hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Sir R. Perkins) has put in very eloquent terms the very strong reasons why the House should give a Second Reading to this Bill. The canal is not in my constituency, but I sit for a neighbouring constituency and I am an inhabitant and ratepayer of the county of Gloucester, so I am concerned with this problem.
It may seem anomalous that the Bill should leave a private company still in possession of an old canal and making a living by selling water and renting old houses, but there is no other way that I can see except the taking over the whole Stroudwater Canal and all its assets by the British Transport Commission. However, there are hardly any assets the Commission wants. It has the right, under the Bill, to take over the stretch of the canal where its rail bridges are, but for the rest there are no assets that a public corporation could very well take over.
There are, of course, the eight bridges to which reference has been made, but they are to be dealt with by the Gloucestershire County Council. It seems to me that there is no alternative except to allow this company to continue to operate those assets which no other public corporation desires, meanwhile allowing—as the Bill proposes—those assets which are of use to the Transport Commission and to the Gloucestershire County Council to be taken over by them. That seems to me to be the most satisfactory and practical solution.
In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) said it was wrong to allow a statutory company to be divested of its responsibilities. He said that the waterway should be kept clear. This company is not liable to maintain the bridges in any other condition than that which obtained when it came into existence 120 years ago, when the bridges no doubt carried horses, donkeys and perhaps carts.
The hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury quite rightly pointed out

that his constituents are in considerable danger because of the antiquated condition of some of these bridges and their inadequacy for modern traffic. He quoted figures. I intended to quote them, but he has stolen my thunder and I will not weary the House by quoting them again. Obviously, to restore the canal to its original condition would -Involve a colossal expenditure which is not justified in present conditions.
Years ago the Gloucestershire County Council spent £10,000 in trying to keep the canal going between the Severn and the Thames. As the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury pointed out, there still remains the old trunk of the canal between the old Gloucester and Sharpness Canal and Stroud itself, which, for a time, was economically useful, but this small canal, even if it were restored to its original condition, could not carry modern traffic.
The Gloucester and Sharpness Canal now carries 300-ton barges which go to the Midlands, and it is a vital inland waterway. Those who say that we who support the Bill are indifferent to inland waterways are being unfair. Where they can be economically useful, we believe that they should be developed in every possible way, but this is a case in which the expenditure of public money is not justified.
I remember the time when the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal and the Severn carried what are known as "long boats"—100-ton boats which plied between the Bristol Channel and the Midlands. Very few of those are to be seen now. We see the modern 300-ton barges. What is the use of trying to restore the Stroudwater Canal under modern conditions? A sum of £250,000 would not be enough if the canal were to carry those big barges.
The Gloucester and Sharpness Canal carries thousands of tons of oil, timber and grain between Sharpness port, on the Bristol Channel, and the inland port of Gloucester—for Gloucester is the most inland port of the country, still thriving and flourishing. But Gloucester finds it much better to distribute by road to places like Stroud instead of using this antiquated canal. In addition, large quantities of materials go from Gloucester into the Midlands by the Severn and the canal which it picks up at Worcester. It


is vital to try to be realistic in these matters, to recognise the revolution in transport which has taken place over the last 50 years and to act accordingly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North asked whether part of the Stroud canal could be used by pleasure boats. It could not all be used, because parts of it are dry, but it is possible that some parts could be used for this purpose. That is not a reason for rejecting the Bill. Rather, it is an argument for sending it upstairs to the Standing Committee and thrashing it out, seeing whether it is possible to use part of it for pleasure boats.
The Gloucestershire County Council is very much concerned about this matter and its engineers have been considering it. I believe that they can see their way to giving this part of the county good bridges over this canal which will meet the conditions of modern traffic. I hope the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. John Baird: I had not intended to take part in the debate, because I have no local knowledge of the Stroudwater Canal and I am in no way connected with Gloucestershire, but I am interested in the whole principle of the future of our canals and I have been forced to my feet because of the speech of the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Sir R. Perkins).
I take it that he was advocating the support of the Bill and the abandonment of the canal, but the argument which he put forward was the best which has been made tonight against the Bill. First of all, he said that at one time this was a very prosperous waterway carrying traffic which came all the way from London to the Midlands and the Severn. It was owned by this company—the same company as is now seeking these powers. The hon. Member said that after some time one part of the canal became neglected and began to leak, and now it is abandoned—abandoned by this company which has been drawing profits from the canal.

Sir R. Perkins: It is an entirely different company.

Mr. Baird: An entirely different company but the same type of company. After that, the other part of the canal, which

runs from Stroud to the Midlands and the Severn, was also neglected and became choked. It is no longer fit for traffic. The hon. Member said that the canal had been in existence for 160 years, so that these companies have been drawing profits from the canal for 160 years. Now we are told that they have no assets with which to carry out their obligations. I should like to know where the money came from to promote the Bill, because we know that Private Bills cannot be promoted without large assets.
As far as I am concerned, the hon. Member's argument is simply that this company, or these companies, have been neglecting their obligations for many years, and now we are asked to give them power to extort more profits while we have no more control over them than in the past. How do we know that if the Bill is passed they will carry out their obligations, when they have not carried them out in the past? I believe that the hon. Member's whole case is the best argument against the Bill. Do not let us give more power to a company which has neglected its duties when it had power in the past.
The hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury used a very plausible argument about the bridges and the cost of putting up new bridges to allow of their use by heavy traffic. This is a problem which is facing the canals all over the country. It is not only a problem for this canal. The Minister has told us that the British Transport Commission has set up a survey committee to inquire into all these problems of canals and their future. It may be that that committee will have some recommendation to make to the House or the country about the future of the canals and about how this bridge problem is to be tackled. I think it would be very foolish of this House to give permission to this company and to the local authority to remove these bridges and put up flat bridges in their place until that committee has reported.
The Minister gave an undertaking in the House some time ago that until the survey committee had reported, which will not be very long now, there will be no further abandonment of canals. It is quite true that this is not a canal owned by the British Transport Commission, but I see that, according to the circular sent out, the Bill is supported by the British


Transport Commission. If the Commission is supporting the abandonment of this canal after the Minister has given an undertaking that there will be no further abandonment until after the survey committee has reported, that is a matter which should be inquired into.
I was astonished by one statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price). He talked about the "antiquated" canals and spoke of 30-ton barges in the narrow canals being no longer economic. I do not think that anyone in any responsible position in the transport industry has ever said that. It is true that in the future we should like to see what we term "The Cross" linked up north, south, east and west and the broad canals continued throughout the Midlands. There all the canals are narrow ones and all the barges are narrow barges—30-ton barges—and they are working economically all along those canals at present. To argue that 300-ton barges must be used before canal transport can become economic and profitable is as wide of the mark as the argument that canals are antiquated.
I have said in the House before that no Member who travels about the Continent and sees the amount of traffic carried on canals in the Low Countries and in Germany would argue that those canals are antiquated. Some of them are narrow canals—[An HON. MEMBER: "Large barges."] Most of the barges are large, of course, but most of the narrow canals are also profitable. I feel that anyone who puts forward the argument that canals are antiquated is more antiquated than the canals.

Mr. Philips Price: My hon. Friend should not misquote me. I made a great point of saying that some canals are extremely valuable, and that thousands of tons of all sorts of traffic pass along them. I was not speaking in the sense which my hon. Friend has attributed to me. I was referring only to certain canals which clearly are not used.

Mr. Baird: I heard my hon. Friend referring to "these antiquated canals" and I thought he was referring to the network of canals in the Midlands. If he is referring to one, I should like to know in what respect one differs from another.
I am opposed to this Bill on principle, chiefly because, as I said earlier, the Minister has set up a survey committee to inquire into the whole future development of our canal system. I do not believe that while that committee is sitting—and until it has reported—any further powers should be given for the abandonment of a waterway. We do not know how that committee will report. I believe that the report will be favourable to the development of canals rather than to the retardation of their development.
As for the canal with which this Bill is concerned, I do not accept the figures given to the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury by his engineering friends. The Inland Waterways Association often finds that a job can be done much quicker and cheaper in ways other than those proposed. I hope that the House will not accept the figures which have been given without going into the matter much more fully. If this canal were cleared again, the growing industrial area round Stroud would still be linked by waterways to the whole of the Midlands, Manchester and the Severn.
We all know how traffic is growing on the roads today. Week after week, month after month, the problem is becoming much more serious. In my own area in the Midlands, where also canals have been neglected, almost all the roads are death-traps. If we want to save life and keep death off the road, we should encourage the development of the canal system. Speed is not the only consideration in transport. Regularity of supply is required, and I believe that can be obtained by canal transport. If we protect and preserve the canals, we shall save many lives and have a much more efficient transport system than we have at the present time.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) obviously feels very strongly about the canal system in general, but he has not directed any attention to the actual position of the canal with which this Bill is concerned. It does not lead anywhere; it is now a cul de sac. Canal traffic fell off, and it was not possible to maintain it. It fell into disuse and however much it may be reconstructed there would be no traffic on it because it leads nowhere. If the hon.


Member looked at a map he would discover that fact.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the vast profits that this company has been making. Had it been making vast profits it would have paid the company to divert some of them into the maintenance of that canal as a profit earning asset. It did not maintain the canal, because there was no traffic to speak of. I wonder if the hon. Member would like to make a guess at the profits of this canal company for the first six months of 1952.

Mr. Baird: I should like to know what the profit was in the early years of this century.

Mr. Nicholson: If there is a profit, no one lets property fall into disrepair. The profit was £119 in the first six months of 1952.

Mr. Parkin: That the balance sheet of a statutory company should be made the subject of a frivolous guessing game is really going too far. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the directors' fees have been since the last time any traffic went over the canal?

Mr. Nicholson: There have been no directors' fees. The hon. Member should direct his reproof to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, who got none of his guesses right.
However enthusiastic one feels about canals, and I am certainly as sentimental about canals as anyone, one cannot turn a canal which leads nowhere into a paying proposition or justify the expenditure of tens or scores of thousands of pounds to bring it into a modern condition. If this canal were brought to such a condition there would still be scarcely any traffic, and a very heavy annual charge would have to be paid to maintain it in that first-class condition. This is a derelict canal. However much one wants to see it used as a canal again no one will be found to use it, so it is not worth while spending a lot of money on it.
I approach this subject as I think most Members of the House will do, regarding myself as a member of a jury. The local authorities, the promoters of the Bill and the local Members of Parliament are the experts who come and plead before the jury. It seems to me to be the duty of ordinary Members of the

House who are not immediately concerned with the question that they should, in passing judgment on whether the Bill should have a Second Reading, ask themselves: should the project be referred by the House to a Committee, or are its contents such manifest nonsense that it is not worth further consideration: or, does it run so counter to our principles that we do not think it should be passed into law? If that should be shown we should reject the Bill.
If a good prima facie case can be made out for the Bill—and quite clearly there are questions which need inquiring into—I maintain that, whatever our political opinions, we should send the Bill to Committee upstairs and have it properly examined. Any hon. Member who has sat on these Committees knows that Bills are treated there with complete impartiality and on their own merits. It is a very interesting branch of the service of the House. They then come back to the House for Third Reading and we can then take our partisan attitude and pass it or reject it, after it has been thoroughly and fairly examined by an impartial Committee.
My hon. Friend said that here was a case for inquiry into the background of this problem. It seems rather curious to say that and then, in the next breath, to say that we will not have an inquiry. I hope that the House will discharge its duties as a jury and send this Bill upstairs for inquiry.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: I know that it is always dangerous for an outsider to enter into a domestic row, and I shall intervene only for a few minutes. The trouble really is caused because the Government will not accept the good advice given to them by committees which have been set up. I have been a member of a committee on a Private Bill which made recommendations, already referred to tonight, and if the Government had accepted and acted upon those recommendations which were then put forward, we would not be in the position of having to debate this particular Bill, and neither would the Stroud-water Canal Company be put to the expense of having to promote a Private Bill, which is a very expensive operation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolver


hampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) said, how are the company to pay the expenses of this Bill out of £119 profit which it made last year?
Those of us who do not know this canal came to the House tonight in a quandary. Naturally, if there is any possibility of the canal being kept open as a canal, we would wish that to take place. If there is no possibility at all of that, then of course it is a useless expense to try to maintain this canal, and it would be better to have the bridges reconstructed by the county council. But so long as there is the slightest possibility of the canal, or any portion of it, being kept open, I think that we should be careful about the action we take with regard to it in this House.
It has been said tonight that we are likely to have a report about the future use of the canals of this country. If this Bill becomes an Act, the bridges will be reconstructed and it will be impossible to use this canal for navigation purposes. Therefore, I suggest that if we are to have this report in the near future, it would be inadvisable in this case to act at the present time.
My usual reaction to Bills of this kind when they come before the House is to support their going upstairs, where they can be very thoroughly examined and all the arguments for and against put, but there is this particular danger that if this Bill becomes an Act and the bridges are reconstructed, it will then be impossible to consider the question of navigation, and, therefore, I think it would be better if this Bill were to be delayed until the particular committee to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred some time ago has reported and we have a plan for the whole of the country. In this instance, I shall go against my usual practice and vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

8.25 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): Hon. Members on both sides of the House have inquired as to what is the attitude of the Ministry of Transport to this Bill, and therefore I think that I ought to intervene for a few moments to explain

the attitude of my right hon. Friend towards it.
I was gratified that both my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Garner Evans) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) mentioned the fact that my right hon. Friend has publicly expressed his sympathy and interest in the inland waterways of this country. We take the view that the bad old days when the railways were deliberately attempting to stifle the competition of the canals are over, and now that the British Transport Commission are responsible for the inland waterways, as well as for the railways, they should endeavour to make the fullest, best and most economic use of all kinds of transport which is available to them.
I am glad to say that that is entirely the attitude which the British Transport Commission have adopted. As the House knows, it was the British Transport Commission which, at the request and suggestion of my right hon. Friend, appointed the Board of Survey, of which Lord Rusholme is chairman, to go into the whole question of the best and most economic use of the inland waterways vested in the British Transport Commission. Sir Rex Hodges, the recently retired manager of the Mersey Docks—a very remarkable man with an impartial outlook upon these things—was added to the Board of Survey, and there is also on it Mr. R. D. Brown, who it was thought would be a great asset to the Board.

Sir R. Perkins: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that this inquiry applies only to canals which are under the control of the British Transport Commission and does not apply to other canals?

Mr. Molson: I was just coming to that point. I was about to say that that survey applies only to the inland waterways which are vested in the British Transport Commission; and therefore it is a quite mistaken argument to suggest that, before the House takes a decision in connection with the Stroudwater Navigation, we should await the findings of a board which is not empowered to consider this matter at all.

Mr. Blackburn: In regard to canals of this type are the Government likely


to consider the recommendations of the Private Bill Committee in the case of the Rochdale Canal Bill?

Mr. Molson: I was just coming to that point also. On the last occasion that this matter was discussed at some length by the Private Bill Committee, it was recommended that the Government should consider the desirability of new general legislation dealing with the matter of canals which are either abandoned or on the point of becoming derelict. As a result an inter-Departmental inquiry is being held on the matter. My Department, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government are all concerned in the inquiry. They are considering the many recommendations and representations made by a wide assortment of interests, but I am bound to say that they have not got very far in reconciling the extremely diverse advice which has been proffered. I think, therefore, that it would be most unwise for this House to refuse to deal with immediate matters because at some time in the future the results of an inter-Departmental inquiry will be reported to the Government.
We all recognise, and I am glad my hon. Friends paid tribute to, the enthusiasm of the Inland Waterways Association but I beg them to exercise some discrimination in these matters. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East asked a rhetorical question of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price). He asked how one canal differs from another. If we are not to distinguish between canals which are still active and, with improvement, capable of further development—and which may be of immense value to the transportation system of this country in the future—and canals like the Stroudwater Navigation which, as has already been pointed out, can no longer act as a link between the Severn and the Thames—which was the purpose of its construction—I am sure that we shall find ourselves in great difficulty.
I beg those who are most concerned about making the best use of the waterways in this country to draw a clear distinction between cases where it is possible and desirable to improve and extend the existing canal system, and cases where canals have been out of use for many years and where it is inconceivable that

expenditure on their maintenance and improvement would prove an economic proposition.
In the case of this canal, the Minister of War Transport received in 1941 a report from the late Mr. Frank Pick who, as the House will remember, was a distinguished expert on transport. Even at that time—13 years ago—he expressed the opinion, without any shadow of doubt, that expenditure on this canal to maintain it in good order would be quite disproportionate to any use which might be made of it.
We have been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Sir R. Perkins) that all the local authorities in that part of the world support this Bill. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, speaking as a neighbour, also supports it. The British Transport Commission is prepared to maintain such part of the canal as would be handed over to it under the provisions of this Bill, and we at the Ministry of Transport are most anxious that this Bill should be passed. We are concerned about these bridges, which are indeed a great danger both to pedestrians and to traffic. It is the duty of this House, in my opinion, to consider how to obtain the best bridges and the safest highways and, at the same time, to save the money of the ratepayers and the taxpayers. So long as these obsolete and unnecessary obligations are imposed upon whoever is responsible for maintaining the bridges, quite unnecessarily large sums of money would have to be spent upon the renewal, repair or replacement of them.
Therefore, it is my humble advice to the House that the Bill should be sent upstairs. I hope that this will not be treated as a matter of principle, nor indeed as an opportunity for propaganda in favour of inland waterways generally. The case for an inquiry is a strong one, but I do not believe that we will find anywhere a better inquiry than that which would be provided by sending the Bill upstairs.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Ede: All those hon. Members who had the opportunity to hear the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Sir R. Perkins) will feel that he made a speech which will be one of the classic accounts of the way in which the canal system has been destroyed by


neglect and, in some cases, by the arrogance of competitve interests. I advise the Inland Waterways Association to issue his speech as a pamphlet on the whole question, because it illustrated the way in which, because these canals were built up in small pieces, therefore when one met with an untimely end others which were quite capable of a continued existence if the link had been maintained, have, in fact, been forced into bankruptcy.
I know the Sapperton Tunnel very well. It really is one of the saddest things to see that magnificent piece of engineering derelict, and when I saw it, in a condition which was pitiful. The part which it must once have played in our commercial life could not be better typified than by the huge size of the Tunnel Inn which at one time catered for the many men who were employed on the canal. To see it now, huge, deserted and obviously a relic of past prosperity, is one of the saddest things I can imagine.
I used to travel to the end of the navigable waters of the Thames at the time when this canal was still open. That probably qualifies me to be regarded as something of an ancient monument.

Mr. George Chetwynd: An ancient mariner.

Mr. Ede: No. People who travel on rivers and canals are not mariners. They are only navigators. At that time the Inglesham Lock connected the canal which we are discussing with the Thames and it was used mainly by horse-drawn traffic.
I am disappointed to hear of the slow progress which is being made by the Government to deal with those canals which have not been taken over by the British Transport Commission. If one sees a map of the canals which were in use at the time of the Royal Commission of 1906 and sees marked on them the pieces that have become derelict since then, one realises how serious has been the neglect of this part of our communications system in the past. I should have thought that it was very desirable that we should consider bringing back into use all those which are capable of being brought back into use.
The appointment of the Rusholme Committee has undoubtedly stimulated

the people employed on the British Transport Commission's waterways very considerably. I spent my Whitsun Recess navigating, in my own boat, the Grand Union Canal—

Mr. Percy Shurmer: Paddling one's own canoe.

Mr. Ede: It was far better than a canoe. I should be quite willing to take my hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. P. Shurmer) in my boat, but I would never go with him in a canoe because he is far too restless. That great man who was born in the constituency of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) said of Middlesex, "All Middlesex is ugly."

Mr. Nicholson: What did he say about London?

Mr. Ede: We are not dealing with London at the moment. I was surprised, once I got through the Thames lock at Brentford, to find how near the country was. Even in places like Southall and Hanwell one reached delightful country in which one could spend a pleasant day and find suitable places for mooring and spending the night.

Sir Waldron Smithers: For what?

Mr. Ede: Obviously, when one is navigating one spends the night with the craft.
The men employed by the Commission—the men engaged on the barges, the lock keepers and others—have all been greatly encouraged by the appointment of the Rusholme Commission and by a visit which Lord Rusholme paid to that part of the canal system. It has given them fresh hope that there is some future for this part of our transport system.
I cannot help thinking that it would be a very good thing if some such personal contact could be made by the Departmental committee which is dealing with the waterways which are not under the control of the Transport Commission. I think that would encourage some of the people concerned to do something to help themselves.
Turning to the canal which we are discussing tonight, there is, after all, no need for the Bill to enable the Gloucestershire County Council to deal with these


bridges. The Surrey County Council was faced with a similar problem about the bridges over the River Wey and the Wey Canal. The River Wey was canalised in the reign of Charles II, and the bridges were of the type which has been described tonight. The Surrey County Council obtained its own powers, not to take over the Canal but to deal with the bridges, which had become derelict and archaic and needed prompt attention. I should have thought that it would have been far better for the Gloucestershire County Council to promote its own Bill to get the powers to enable it to do what it is willing to do.

Sir R. Perkins: Would the right hon. Gentleman support such a Bill, if one were forthcoming?

Mr. Ede: Yes, I should certainly support it. I do not want to see the two or three intricate problems with which we are involved here being so used as ultimately to end against the public interest.
I think that the duty of providing bridges to deal with modern traffic over these canals ought not to be the liability of the canal company. Their liability, as the hon. Member quite rightly said, is only to deal with providing the same sort of bridge as would carry the traffic at the time the bridge was first constructed under the Parliamentary powers given when the Act authorising the canal was passed. I think these canal bridges are among the most beautiful structures that man has made within the last couple of hundred of years in the countryside—far better than some of the concrete monstrosities that are now being erected in straight lines, which, though perhaps very efficient, certainly do not give any pleasure to the eye when one seems them.
Just as Richmond Bridge, on the Thames, was widened by skilled engineers with the aid of the Royal Fine Art Commission. I can see no reason why

the general shape of these bridges should not be maintained and their width made suitable for modern traffic. There are two ways of dealing with the problem that results. Either one can build ramps, as the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury mentioned, or it would be possible by the use of traffic lights to prevent two vehicles approaching the crown of the bridge at the same time from opposite directions. That is done in various parts of the country.

I hope we shall not be told that because, at some point or other on this canal, the road to link up with the Severn Bridge will have to be constructed, we must therefore accept a bridge that will be too close to the water level in the canal as the inevitable result. I should have thought that, in the case of such a bridge, we should have regard to the possible future use of this waterway, and I sincerely hope that this matter will receive further consideration from the people concerned.

I also hope that the efforts that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) to arrange for a local society to be formed to deal with the future use of the waterway will be successful. I am quite certain that, with the increasing opportunities for leisure that will be generally available for people in the towns, the use of suitable waterways for recreation will become of ever increasing importance. As far as I am concerned, and I speak for myself alone, as a protest against the neglect of the canals which has been shown for so long, I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North if he proceeds to a Division.

Question put, "That 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 144: Noes, 112.

Division No. 185.]
AYES
[8.49 p.m.


Alport, C. J. M.
Braine, B. R.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Davidson, Viscountess


Arbuthnot, John
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Deedes, W. F.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA


Baldwin, A. E.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Drewe, Sir C.


Barber, Anthony
Bullard, D. G.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Barlow, Sir John
Burden, F. F. A.
Duthie, W. S.


Bartley, P.
Cary, Sir Robert
Erroll, F. J.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Fort, R.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Cole, Norman
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)




Godber, J. B.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Shepherd, William


Graham, Sir Fergus
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Grimond, J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Snadden, W. McN.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Maude, Angus
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hargreaves, A.
Mellor, Sir John
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Molson, A. H. E.
Studholme, H. G.


Heath, Edward
Moody, A. S.
Summers, G. S.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Morrey, R.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Neave, Airey
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thornton, E.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Tilney, John


Jennings, Sir Roland
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Vane, W. M. F.


Kaberry, D.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Vosper, D. F.


Kenyon, C.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wade, D. W.


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Pitman, I. J.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


King, Dr. H. M.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Lambton, Viscount
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Leather, E. H. C.
Proctor, W. T.
West, D. G.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Profumo, J. D.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Ronton, D. L. M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


McAdden, S. J.
Russell, R. S.



McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Sir Herbert Williams and




Mr. Crouch.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Hayman, F. H.
Popplewell, E.


Adams, Richard
Holmes, Horace
Pryde, D. J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Holt, A. F.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Awbery, S. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ross, William


Bing, G. H. C.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Bowden, H. W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Skeffington, A. M.


Brockway, A. F.
Keenan, W.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Lawson, G. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Sorensen, R. W.


Champion, A. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Sparks, J. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
McInnes, J.
Steele, T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Delargy, H. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Timmons, J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Messer, Sir F.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mikardo, Ian
Viant, S. P.


Fernyhough, E.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wallace, H. W.


Fienburgh, W.
Monslow, W.
Weitzman, D.


Finch, H. J.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Foot, M. M.
Mort, D. L.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moyle, A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Gibson, C. W.
Oldfield, W. H.
Williams, David (Neath)


Greenwood, Anthony
Oswald, T.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Paget, R. T.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Willis, E. G.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hale, Leslie
Parker, J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hamilton, W. W.
Parkin, B. T.



Hastings, S.
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Baird and Mr. Blackburn


Bill read a Second time, and committed.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

8.58 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 11.
As we spent rather a long time on the previous Measure, I shall endeavour to be shorter than otherwise might have been the case. That sentiment will, I hope, receive your approbation, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
Clause 11 is a very strange Clause, and it is also unique. The fact that a thing is done for the first time is, of course, no fundamental reason against it. It is also the reason for a very close examination, and we must bear in mind that it is not our duty to say that the Clause is a bad one, but for those who support it and for those who are petitioning Parliament to grant this somewhat novel power to say that it is a good one.
I have always been a very strict opponent of monopoly. Wherever I find it, I am inclined to oppose it, because, in the nature of things, monopoly is evil.

Mr. William Keenan: How many directorships does the hon. Gentleman monopolise?

Sir H. Williams: I do not monopolise anything. It is not my fault if people think that my advice is worth taking. I should be very interested to discuss the point on some other occasion, but the hon. Gentleman need not be jealous.
I only saw the petition today and do not know any of the petitioners, but they are numerous. There are the National Farmers' Union; the British Flower Association—the organisation commonly known as "Interflora"; the Horticultural Trades Association; the National Federation of Fruit and Potato Trades, Limited, and the Retail Fruit Trade Association. They are bodies representative, I think, of the people who would send goods to a market.
We are familiar with the fact that in the time of the ancient monarchies when Parliament had failed to make adequate provision for the service both of the

monarch and of the State—because it was a common pot—the monarch frequently granted monopolies on terms favourable to his own interests and those of the State, but for a long time it has been regarded as undesirable to create these monopolies.
I understand that the market in Coventry is not a place where the corporation itself engages in trade, but it wants to have a monopoly in the sense that: only the people who have stalls in the market would be permitted to deal wholesale in what is commonly called market garden produce. Poultry, fruit and vegetables. I think, are included, although I have not a copy of the Bill—but it is that variety of produce commonly found in market gardens.
The corporation wants to make it a crime for anyone to sell wholesale to retailers in the City of Coventry except through this one central establishment. I do not understand its purpose. I have never, directly or indirectly, been engaged in this branch of trade.

Dr. H. Morgan: That is why they are doing well.

Sir H. Williams: Maybe, but I have never been engaged in the wholesale or retail distribution of what is called market garden produce. However, as a customer who moves about, as do most, I have observed that very often a Rood deal of the trade is done by the mobile market—the lorry which is loaded up at the market garden or farm and sent round a particular town delivering the requisite consignments of produce to the retail shops. That would become impossible in Coventry.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: No, it would not. I object to that. I spent 28 years on a market stall.

Sir H. Williams: That may be so—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Order. I hope that the conversation at that end of the Chamber will stop.

Sir H. Williams: I do not know whether the hon. Member said he was a licensed hawker, or words to that effect. All I am concerned with is whether or not he has read the Bill. He may have been engaged for 28 years in retail distribution—

Mr. Shurmer: No.

Sir H. Williams: I am very sorry that the hon. Member is so careless in his utterances that we cannot understand what he said and he cannot recollect what he did say. If the hon. Member interrupted a little less frequently, it might help the debate.
That kind of distribution, as I understand the Bill, would become illegal.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that Clause 11 (3) specifically says that the Section shall not apply to
the sale of goods sold by the person who grew or reared the same;
That would apply to the goods produced by a market gardener. On a question of fact, may I be allowed to say that that is so?

Sir H. Williams: I have not got a copy of the Bill. There are a very few copies. It is the case that for many years—

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has made a serious suggestion which has been denied. Would he please withdraw the downright untruth that he uttered?

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has accused me of uttering a downright untruth. A downright untruth is a breach of the way in which we conduct business in this House. If an hon. Member says something which may be inaccurate, it is not the practice to describe that as an untruth.

Mr. Crossman: It is not for the hon. Gentleman to decide what the practice is.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: To accuse an hon. Member of a downright untruth is not in accordance with the rules of the House. It would simplify matters a good deal if the Chair were addressed in this debate.

Mr. Crossman: Of course, I will withdraw the phrase "downright untruth" and substitute "a totally inaccurate description of the Bill." The hon. Gentleman has asserted that those market gardeners who come with a lorry to Coventry will be forbidden to market their produce in the retail shops. That is untrue. In the very Clause which he is opposing it is explicitly stated that

they are exempted from the provisions of the Clause, and that the practice will be permitted. I only ask the hon. Gentleman to read the Clause which he is opposing before he gets on with his speech.

Sir H. Williams: I now have a copy of the Bill. I was labouring under a disability.

Dr. Morgan: As always.

Sir H. Williams: The only effect of these ceaseless interruptions is to prolong the debate. I am never put off by interruptions—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address his remarks to the Chair.

Sir H. Williams: I find that I had overlooked subsection (2, b). I make mistakes from time to time. I do not see why it should cause anyone distress. But because I have made an honest mistake, I object strongly to it being described as an untruth, because one is intentional and the other is inadvertent.

Mr. Crossman: I said that it was a totally inaccurate statement.

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Gentleman's first statement was different.

Mr. Crossman: I withdrew it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member to address the Chair.

Sir H. Williams: I will do my best, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Shurmer: The hon. Gentleman had better hurry up. There are perishable goods in this market.

Sir H. Williams: It is true that there are certain provisos which limit the extent of the monopoly, but that does not alter the fact that the whole conception of the Clause is to create a partial monopoly. As I am one of those who are opposed to monopolies, I am opposed to this Clause. This Clause, as I have said earlier, is novel. It is a power not possessed by any other local authority in this country. To the best of my knowledge, it is a power not previously sought by any local authority in this country, and I hope that in due course hon. Members opposite will give some justification for this Clause. That is what I want to hear,


because if I am convinced that this is not the monopoly that I conceive it to be, then naturally I shall not persist in supporting the Instruction. I want to approach this matter in quite a fair-minded manner.
As I have said, I had seen none of the documents produced by those who have petitioned against the Bill until I received them some time this afternoon, but I understand from what happened in another place that one of the arguments in support of this monopoly was the traffic question. It was suggested that there would be less congestion of traffic if the whole of the goods to be sold were sent to a central market.
That seems to me to be entirely delusive. We all know the appalling congestion which is caused in London—although this kind of restriction does not exist there—because a large proportion of market garden produce is concentrated in the Covent Garden area for distribution. Anyone who drives through that area knows how appalling the congestion is. It is a terrible mistake to centralise the distribution of produce in a place right in the centre of a town. The less it is centralised, the better. That is one reason I believe this to be an unfortunate Clause. I am inclined to think that it will add to prices. If a large proportion of the produce has to be taken to a central point from places outside and then has to be redistributed to points of retail distribution, there will be a duplication of traffic, which will have to be paid for, and the cost of this transport will ultimately be added to the cost of the goods.

Mr. Crossman: I do not know whether the hon. Baronet is aware that this site was selected after consultations between all the wholesalers and retailers in the area. It is two miles from the centre of the town, on the side from which the produce will be chiefly derived. Does not that fact affect his argument to some extent?

Mr. Nabarro: On which side of the town is it situated?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Baronet the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) is in possession of the House.

Sir H. Williams: I am rather pleased to hear that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As

I said earlier, I have no desire unduly to prolong this debate, because there is another Private Bill to be taken after this one and then there are Affirmative Resolutions in connection with Sunday cinematograph entertainments. As I—in common with many other hon. Members—got to bed very late last night, I am undesirous of prolonging the debate. I think I have said enough to indicate the grounds upon which I tabled this Instruction.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I beg to second the Motion.
I have a direct interest in this matter from a constituency standpoint, and, if I may say with very great respect and humility to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), I trust that the observations I shall make on behalf of a number of small enterprises in western Worcestershire—responsible for growing much of the fruit and vegetables which finds its way to the industrial areas of Birmingham, the Black Country and Coventry—will be listened to more quietly than were the observations of my hon. Friend.
The reason why I asked the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) on which side of Coventry the market to which he referred is to be sited is that it has some bearing upon transportation costs in respect of the fruit and vegetables we are discussing under this Clause much of which come from certain areas of my constituency, namely, the Teme Valley, the northern end of the Vale of Evesham and in western Worcestershire, which are predominantly associated with the horticultural industry.
Clause 11 is restrictive in its effect. It is quite true that a grower or rearer is not precluded from direct sale, within the boundaries of the City of Coventry, to a retail organisation or a consumer. The hon. Member for Coventry, East was, in essence, correct in what he said about Subsection (3, b), for that paragraph reads:
the sale of goods sold by the person who grew or reared the same …
and the subsection begins with the words:
This section shall not apply to …
It is, therefore, clear that there is no restrictive element in respect of a grower himself selling direct to a retailer or a consumer, but what the hon. Gentleman


conveniently forgot, in his intervention, is that the bulk of the horticultural produce of west Worcestershire and other Midlands horticultural producing areas is sold by rural wholesalers, to other wholesalers in the urban areas, or to retailers or to consumers.
That is general throughout the horticultural industry, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not condemn it too strongly, for this is an arrangement generally subscribed to by the Cooperative societies. They follow almost exactly the same arrangements. It may not be so in Coventry. I have no precise knowledge of what the Co-operatives do in Coventry, but in various other parts of the country they do, and my argument against this Clause and my objection to it is simply that if it becomes effective it will prevent a growers' organisation, a growers' co-operative or wholesale body that has bought produce from a number of primary producers, from selling in the City of Coventry direct to retailers or to consumers except through the municipal market. The Clause will require that wholesale or co-operative organisation to sell only through the City municipal market. I do not think that interpretation of the Clause can be open to question.
In broad principle, I dislike any tendency towards collectivisation. I dislike, on principle, any tendency towards the creation of municipal or monopoly markets, particularly in perishable goods, and particularly in the case of horticultural products, for which the growers are, by and large, very large numbers of small men. Such growers have not the channels of sale and distribution on their own account, and thus they sell through a wholesale organisation, or through a co-operative organisation, representing them.

Mr. Edelman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is nothing in Clause 11 (3, b) that prevents a group of producers from getting together to sell their goods as they would wish, and as if they were market gardeners selling on their own account. Indeed, a co-operative arrangement as described by the hon. Gentleman could be specifically excluded by the Clause.

Mr. Nabarro: That is not the interpretation I put on the Clause. I have

described precisely the interpretation that I put on it, and to repeat it in shorter form it is simply that a grower is not precluded from direct sale to a wholesaler or to a retailer or to a consumer in Coventry, whereas an organisation of wholesalers or retailers representing the growers is obliged to go through the municipal market, thereby creating an additional tier of trade distribution and adding to costs.
It must be made clear that if this Clause were accepted, if the Bill went without the Instruction to the Committee, the general effect would be to add an additional link in the chain of distribution—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must realise that some of the biggest retail organisations in the country which will equally be affected by an arrangement of this kind are the Co-operative societies—

Mr. G. Lindgren: You are not worried about them, brother.

Mr. Nabarro: I am not worried about them, and I wish the hon. Gentleman would not indulge in his camaraderie slang and call me "brother" in the House of Commons, for I am not a brother to the hon. Gentleman or to his Parliamentary colleagues.
The Co-operative societies selling to the general public will be in exactly the same position as other retail traders in having to buy a part of their produce at least from the centralised municipal market. If this Clause became effective it would undoubtedly impose an additional link in the chain of distribution of horticultural produce, in Coventry, in certain circumstances thereby inflating costs.
I have always been greatly opposed to the views of the hon. Lady for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) upon the cost of distribution of horticultural produce. Her view is that the present arrangements are extravagant and too diversified. She thinks that they ought to be organised on some form of communal or centralised basis, similar to that provided by the Clause. If that is done, a measure of competition will thereby be eliminated, and because that measure of competition is eliminated, it will add to the cost of distribution and, in my view, result ultimately in a still higher price having to be paid for perishable horticultural goods.
The City of Coventry has a Socialist Council with a large majority. The Borough of Kidderminster has a Conservative majority. It is perhaps logical that a city council with a Socialist majority should tend towards the municipalisation of its essential or semi-essential services.

Mr. Shurmer: Quite right.

Mr. Nabarro: I might tell the hon. Member who constantly interrupts me that I cannot imagine a Conservative Council bringing in a Communist measure such as is contained in Clause 11, and I am using communist with a small "c" because that is exactly what the Clause implies. It is depriving certain private traders of facilities for obtaining and distributing their goods and, is thus a restrictive practice.

Mr. Shurmer: The hon. Member is shouting about markets and about communism and Socialist councils. Is he aware that the Birmingham City Council had such an arrangement for many years—in fact, until 1945—from the time I went on to the council. It had a large Conservative majority—[Laughter.] Never mind the "Ha, Ha." The hon. Member for Kidderminster need not laugh. I can play him at his own game at any time. The point is, who is in these markets? Is it the Socialist council which is selling the produce? No; it is the great wholesalers, many of whom support the Conservative Party.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is in his customary, confused state of mind. I know the market conditions in the City of Birmingham quite as well as he does. What is the position? The Birmingham City Council controls the granting of facilities for marketing within the city, but it has never sought to impose such a stringent limitation as the Coventry City Council now requires, which is, in effect, that no person shall distribute horticultural produce in Coventry—unless he be a grower; there is that caveat—without a licence or a permissive document issued by the city council. No such provision exists, in such stringent terms in the City Birmingham, and that is the essential difference between the two cities.
I am speaking on behalf of a large number of horticultural growers and—I make no denial of it—on behalf of the National Farmers' Union. The N.F.U.

has 200,000 members in the country, and I can claim that its largest branch in the West Midlands is in Kidderminster, with no fewer than 600 members, a high percentage of whom are horticultural growers.

Mr. J. B. Godber: My hon. Friend should not say that that is the largest branch. We have much larger branches in Lincolnshire.

Mr. Nabarro: Where my hon. Friend makes his mistake is that we are concerned in the debate primarily with Coventry, Birmingham and Kidderminster, all of which are in the West Midlands, a long way from my hon. Friend's native Lincolnshire.
The horticultural community is greatly opposed to this provision and wishes to see the Clause deleted. The National Farmers' Union is unanimous in that regard. It conceives that this Clause has been included in the Bill by the Coventry City Council as a Socialist aberration, similar, of course to the aberration of the Coventry City Council in regard to Civil Defence.
I hope that the majority of the House will conceive that it is not in the national interest, the interest of the City of Coventry or in the interest of the horticultural producers. The provisions of Clause 11 are also opposed by consumers, who see the possibility of prices for horticultural provisions being substantially increased. I hope that, for all those reasons, the House will overwhelmingly support the Instruction to the Committee for the deletion of the Clause and require that free and unfettered competition shall be the means of reducing the price of fruit and vegetables in Coventry and elsewhere.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: Having listened to the hon. Members for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) dealing with the Coventry Corporation Bill, I feel obliged to declare my interest in the matter, in conjunction with my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and Coventry, South (Miss Burton). We are closely associated with the Coventry City Council in advancing tonight certain arguments in favour of the Bill which I hope will have the close attention of the House.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster, in his familiar, megaphonic fatuous confusion, tried to import into this Bill a high degree of political prejudice. What are the facts? He spoke of Communism, of a Socialist-controlled council, but he at no time made mention of the fact that the Bill has, and has always had, the unanimous support of the Coventry City Council. Though it is the case that the council has a Socialist majority, the fact is that when the Bill was discussed and brought before the council it received the unanimous support of Socialists and Conservatives.
It might be thought, if one were merely to listen to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, that in some curious and conspiratorial way this Bill was a Socialist plot in order, by some backstairs method, to introduce a Socialist technique into the marketing affairs of the city. Not a bit of it. For a very long period the proposals contained in the Bill were the subject of consultations between the city council and all the interests represented in the city.
There were discussions with the trade, with the wholesalers, with the retailers; in fact all those in Coventry who had a direct concern with marketing were consulted. No objection was made. On the contrary, the Bill had the enthusiastic support of all the traders, whether wholesalers or retailers, in Coventry. It is perfectly true that there was one inquiry—not an objection—from outside. It was from the Bedworth Council; it was answered, and the inquirers were satisfied.
I wish to emphasise that this is not a partisan matter; it is not a case of party politics. The proposals contained in the Bill have been the subject of close and careful scrutiny by Conservatives and Socialists and by the business community in the city, and as a result it was decided unanimously in Coventry that the Bill should be put forward.

Mr. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us why, among all those bodies consulted, Coventry did not have regard to the interests of the private producers and consult the National Farmers' Union?

Mr. Edelman: The National Farmers' Union can speak for itself and has spoken for itself by laying petitions before the House. It has in the person of the hon.

Gentleman, I will not say an adequate spokesman, but at any rate a spokesman who has been able to present the case of the N.F.U.
I am at the moment dealing with the question of Coventry as such, and I say that in Coventry the proposals in the Bill were heard and unanimously accepted. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that submission, may I also remind him that, at a later stage, a resolution for the promotion of the Bill was passed at a public meeting of local government electors and a separate resolution was passed in respect of marketing.
At that time, had it been the wish of anyone to demand a poll, it would have required only 100 voices to obtain a poll, and had that been the wish in Coventry, a poll could have been demanded, would have been granted, and the objectors would have been heard. The fact is that no such objections were made.
I think that tonight my hon. Friends and I can claim that we speak on behalf of Coventry, on behalf of its council, producers, consumers, wholesalers and retailers—

Mr. Nabarro: Not the producers.

Mr. Edelman: —and of all those concerned in the matter, who will benefit from the admirable proposals which are contained in the Bill.
It is not my purpose tonight to suggest that there have not been any objections. There have been certain objections advanced by the Home Office, which made certain submissions, particularly concerning Clause 11. Afterwards, when the Clause went to the Lord Chairman of Committees in another place, certain of the objections put forward by the Home Office were adequately met, and the Clause was amended until it reached its present form. It now contains a most important and valuable provision, which I very much regret to say the hon. Member for Croydon, East overlooked. I am sure that he will agree that it is a most important provision.

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Gentleman says that I overlooked the point; but, on the other hand, the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) with regard to the wholesale distributors has not been met.

Mr. Edelman: That is a point which I should like to meet. It is a fair and valid point, and, in my own interpretation of the Clause, I believe that point is in fact left, I will in a few moments submit for the consideration of hon. Members on both sides what I think is necessary.
What is necessary tonight is that we should agree to allow the Bill to go upstairs to Committee in its present form. If there are matters of fact which require clarification, such as those advanced by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, and it is necessary to introduce certain Amendments, let the case be heard upstairs, and let those who are interested advance their arguments and put forward their particular interests in the matter. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Croydon, East will find that the Coventry City Council is very anxious to meet any particular objections which may be advanced, and will do what lies in its power to satisfy those who may have doubts about what appears to be the monopolistic character of this Clause.
When the hon. Member for Croydon, East was speaking he laid very great stress on the question of monopoly. One can well understand that that is a matter which agitates the hon. Member, and I am sure that it would agitate many hon. Members on this side of the House if they felt that anyone were trying to obtain monopolistic powers which might be abused. But let us consider, for a moment, the nature of this so-called monopoly. The Coventry City Council is attempting to set up a market which will provide certain facilities for the city, and where it will be necessary in the normal way for all who sell fruit, vegetables, game and meat wholesale to sell their goods.
What are the substantial reasons why the Coventry City Council is committing itself to the heavy expense of setting up the only wholesale market in the centre of a market of this kind? The fact is that the city was destroyed by bombing during the war. Since that time, in the general replanning of the city and in its general redevelopment, it was decided—particularly as the major part of the produce which is the subject of this Bill comes from the east—to remove the market and establish a new market on the eastern side of the city. I would stress to the hon. Member for Kidderminster that the whole point of that decision was to provide

access for the private producers and their wholesalers who would be bringing their goods to the market from the eastern side.
All who know Coventry will agree that it is a rapidly expanding city. It developed greatly during the war and it is constantly increasing in population—

Mr. Ellis Smith: And importance.

Mr. Edelman: Quite so, and it is becoming congested. If it were possible for wholesalers to run their heavy lorries from all sides of the city at their own discretion, and without any consideration for the amenities of the city—bearing in mind the fact that Coventry is vitally important as an export centre—obviously we would have a wholly inefficient system of marketing in the city. For that reason, the city council decided that it would make this substantial investment in a market on the eastern side of the city, where the produce comes from, and where it will be distributed.
Does it constitute a monopoly to provide a service, a facility, a private meeting place, where the competitive market gardeners and wholesalers can engage in their normal business? No one is saying that competition should be throttled. No one is saying that competition in wholesale marketing should be done away with, All that is suggested is that the Coventry Corporation should provide a meeting place where the wholesalers who feed the city will be able to meet in the most sanitary and convenient place and in the most favourable conditions both for themselves and for the consumers. Surely it is not a monopoly when there is no commercial advantage in terms of profit for the Corporation as such?

Mr. Nabarro: No one has any objection at all to Coventry, or any other town, having a new market. That is not the argument. It never has been the argument that this Clause creates a complete monopoly; but it is restrictive, and it does create a partial monopoly. Will the hon. Gentleman answer that?

Mr. Edelman: The only comment I would make on what the hon. Member for Kidderminster has said is that he is abusing language when he calls the provision of a unique service a monopoly.
Bearing in mind the intention of the City Corporation, and the fact that it is


willing to make such Amendments in Committee upstairs as may be asked for by those specially interested, I hope that the hon. Member for Croydon, East will withdraw his objection to Clause 11; that the Bill may be committed to go to a Committee upstairs; that evidence may be called; that counsel may be allowed to speak, and the Bill be given that careful consideration which it is the tradition of this House to extend to Private Bills. If that is done, then we can hope that ultimately we shall have a Bill which in its final form will serve not only Coventry but the rest of the country as well.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: At the outset I should like to clear up a little misunderstanding between my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and myself. He is justly proud of his close connection with his virile branches of the National Farmers' Union, but I remind him that the N.F.U. started in Lincolnshire, in my constituency, and it has always continued to flourish there to a greater extent than elsewhere.

Mr. Nabarro: I should like to put my hon. Friend right. He is talking about the North Midlands. I am talking about the West Midlands.

Mr. Godber: I had better move on from that point before I incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) put his case most persuasively and reasonably. We listened carefully to the points which he tried to make, but there are some very strong reasons why we should resist the Clause. A number of those reasons have been put by my hon. Friends.
Before I proceed further, I should declare an interest in that I myself sell a considerable proportion of the horticultural produce of my own business in Coventry and in its wholesale market. In actual fact, the provisions of the Bill would be helpful to me. My interests will be adversely affected by what I am saying, but I believe most sincerely in the principle of freedom against monopoly and even if it harmed my own interests I would still vote against the Clause. I make that absolutely clear.
I have sent a large proportion of my produce into Coventry for many years. I know the conditions there and I realise that there is need for a new market. I accept that absolutely, but I do not see why in the provision of a new market the Coventry Corporation should seek to impose restrictions on those wholesalers who regularly bring produce into Coventry—not only those from Birmingham, Evesham, and other areas, but also those who come from the area in which I live in Bedfordshire.
I am thinking especially of the small grower who brings in his own produce and also the produce of his friends. The small grower with one lorry, who has a few acres of land and who collects a certain amount of produce from some of his friends, goes into towns such as Coventry and delivers and sells on the doorsteps of the shops. Those people are not wholly covered. They are covered only so far as their own produce is concerned, and many of them could not make a living on that alone. I say most sincerely that this is a genuine point which must be met.
Coventry Corporation must meet the point. The Corporation has introduced subsection (3) to which reference has been made, but it introduced that only as the result of representations. I suggest that it would be right and fitting now for the Corporation to go a stage further and try to meet the genuine points. Then perhaps they would be able to get agreement upon the matter.
If they would do that and allow freedom for the seller of horticultural products, I believe that that would take away very much of the antagonism of my hon. Friends and myself. No assurance has been given on that point, and for that reason we must press for the Clause to be deleted from the Bill.
It should be noted that this is an entirely new point. There are many towns and cities which have their own markets. Many of them are very fine wholesale markets but, as far as I know, there is no other case where it has been sought to prevent competition with those markets by people with lorries delivering produce and selling at the doorstep. This is a most unfair restriction which it is sought to make. It is an unfair restriction against the smallest producer of all who is most in need of help.
There is a point that I would put to the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), who, I know, is very concerned about the housewives in many ways. On many ocasions in this House I have heard her standing up for the housewives. The people about whom I am talking are bringing their produce to the towns in the freshest way possible, and they are probably getting it to the housewives in the cheapest way possible. I am sure that we shall have the hon. Lady's support in seeking to delete the Clause.

Mr. Crossman: I gather that what the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) wants is an assurance on the specific point about the small grower. That can surely be worked out upstairs when the Bill goes to a Committee. I gather that what he is urging is that we should send the Bill upstairs provided he is told that his point will be met there.

Mr. Godber: It is not only that. I want a little more than that, and I hope the hon. Member does not think I am unreasonable. There is the valid case of the wholesalers who bring produce in from Birmingham, and there is a similar point in respect of the co-operatives. We have to consider those who buy in Birmingham market and take their produce to surrounding towns. Birmingham market is a much larger market than that in Coventry, and it caters for a considerable part of that trade.
Also, this is an entirely new provision for any corporation to seek to secure. For that reason, the National Farmers' Union and all the other organisations concerned view it with the greatest suspicion. If this provision were written into the Bill, no doubt many other corporations would want similar powers. We ought to be quite certain that the powers are not unreasonably given.
I do not feel that a case has been made for the provision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) said earlier, it is up to the promoters of the Bill to make their case. I feel that they have not made their case. Unless we get a very real assurance on this point, I hope the House will reject the Clause.

Sir H. Williams: In view of the offers which have been made by the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr.Crossman) and the hon. Member for Coventry, North

(Mr. Edelman), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion in order that the matter may be examined by a Committee.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

9.48 p.m.

Sir Charles Taylor: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clauses 60 to 62
The object of Clause 60 is to license certain premises for the slaughtering and dressing of poultry, Clause 61 gives the Corporation powers to make certain byelaws, and Clause 62 exempts certain premises, such as hotels and catering establishments, from the necessity of applying for licences in respect of the dressing of poultry.
Such Clauses as these three have never previously been used in any corporation Bill. I know that a number of hon. Members representing Manchester believe that what happens in Manchester today will happen elsewhere in England tomorrow, but I do not see why three such Clauses should be necessary. To parody the phrase of a great statesman, "Manchester has some chickens which have some necks." Probably all of us, during our lifetime, have wrung the neck of a chicken. I fail to see why it is necessary that the Manchester Corporation should have specially licensed premises for the slaughtering of chickens.
In Clause 60, the first of the offending Clauses, it is provided that the Corporation shall not
grant or renew a licence unless an authorised officer has inspected the premises named in the application and has made a report thereon;
I am one of those who believe that we want to do away with some of these inspectors, that there should not be the necessity for having inspectors to inspect premises for the wringing of chicken's necks.
One very potent reason which I would give for asking the House to agree with me about this Instruction is that there is now before the House the Food and


Drugs Amendment Bill, which, in my opinion, goes far too far in many respects in dealing with the cleanliness—I was going to say the cleanliness of food, but that might be misinterpreted—far too far in making regulations and instructions dealing with the cleanliness of food.
I believe that food should be scrupulously clean, but that that should be done more by education than by legislation, and if the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill contains no Clause about the need for the inspection of premises for the slaughtering of chickens, I fail to see why the Manchester Corporation should ask us to allow them to have this Clause in their Bill.
I am not necessarily concerned about Manchester. I am concerned that this is a precedent that may be set throughout the whole country. Some of my hon. Friends and myself have had considerable experience of these Private Bills, and we find that, once one corporation has obtained various Clauses in a Bill, every other corporation automatically asks for the same Clauses to be inserted in their Bills. It then becomes a precedent for all sorts of piecemeal legislation throughout the whole country. I believe that if such a Clause as this is necessary to the community as a whole, the House should tackle the problem for the whole country, and not only for Manchester.

Mr. L. M. Lever: Manchester always leads the way.

Sir C. Taylor: I have said that already, but, if the House believes these Clauses to be necessary, then we should tackle the problem nationally and not piecemeal. I do not believe that these Clauses are necessary. Clause 60 makes it necessary for certain premises to be licensed. Then, Clause 61 gives a power of making byelaws, but Clause 62 seems to exempt nearly everybody, except the professional slaughterer of chickens.
There is one final point which also relates to Clause 62, which provides that
the dressing of poultry in hotels restaurants cafes clubs canteens or other catering establishments
shall be exempt from the provisions of this Clause, for dressing purposes only, but it does not mention slaughtering. If the provisions of Clause 62 became the

general practice throughout the whole country, it would mean that every little village inn which did a bit of catering, every little village hotel which kept a few chickens in the back garden, would have to have a licence before it would be possible to wring a chicken's neck so that it could be dressed, cooked and served at table, which is quite ridiculous.

Mr. Harold Lever: The village would have to promote a Bill first.

Sir C. Taylor: If this Clause becomes general practice, as it will if Manchester obtains the right to have it in the Bill—

Mr. Lever: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us the number of villages that have promoted Private Bills in this House during the last century?

Sir C. Taylor: That is not the point. Eastbourne Corporation still includes villages, and what applies to Eastbourne Corporation will apply to those villages. We still have countrymen who keep chickens in the back garden.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Is not the hon. Member misleading the House on this matter? If he will read the Clause he will find that those people are exempt.

Sir C. Taylor: The hon. Member has not read the Clause himself. The dressing of chickens is exempt, but not the slaughtering. If the Clause is allowed, dressing will still be permitted, but people will not be allowed to wring chickens' necks unless they apply for a licence, and their premises will be inspected. If they did so inadvertently, not knowing the law, they would be liable to a penalty not exceeding £10 for the first offence and for any subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding. £50 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.

Mr. Ede: After the first offence they would know that it was an offence.

Sir C. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Clause 62 goes much too far. The three Clauses will set a precedent for the whole country which is unnecessary and will impose more inspectors and Regulations upon us. I therefore ask the House to support me in this Motion.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Erroll: I beg to second the Motion.
The Motion has been ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor). I would remind hon. Gentlemen that we are settling this question not only for Manchester but for the country as a whole. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Once the Clauses are granted to Manchester in 1954, that fact will be cited by promoters of Private Bills in future years as a justification for their writing substantially the same Clauses into their Bills.
That would apply not only to big cities like Birmingham and Newcastle, or to the London County Council, but also to other county councils—this may perhaps assist the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) who raised this point with my hon. Friend—and we know that county council Bills very often seek the same powers as are ordinarily granted to cities. On that basis, these powers may be used as required by all local authorities within a county, such as non-county boroughs, urban and rural district councils, or county districts.
Therefore, the fact is that if the Clauses are passed today in their present form, we shall be setting the shape of licensing for this type of thing for the whole of the country in the future, in large towns, small towns, country inns, and all the rest. In my study of Private Bills over the last few years, I have noticed how frequently county councils pick out Clauses which have been introduced for large cities and adapt them to their own purposes on the ground that they have medium-sized towns as well as villages, and that all must be catered for in a county council Bill.

Mr. J. T. Price: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his present argument on this narrow point affecting the slaughter of chickens with the votes he has given this week in support of the Government who are seeking to enlarge the number of slaughterhouses from 600 to an estimated figure of 4,000 in the next month?

Mr. Erroll: I must admit that I did not follow the debate in such detail as I should have done, but I should have thought that the two subjects were in line with each other—more slaughterhouses for animals, and complete free

dom to slaughter chickens. It really seems unnecessarily detailed for one to have to get a licence in order to slaughter a chicken and to sell the carcase, but that is what these Clauses propose.
I know that a certain concession has been given to caterers in the Manchester area because they very rightly objected. I know that one should not turn one's back on a concession, but it serves to show the weakness of Manchester's case that, when pressure is brought to bear on the corporation by the caterers, it says to them, "In your case, it is not necessary for you to be licensed for dressing, but only for killing chickens." If dressing is to be free, why should not the operation of killing be exempted from licensing as well? The two operations go very much hand in hand.

Mr. George Lawson: I gather from what has been said by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) that he has no knowledge at all of the fact that sometimes quite considerable skill is called for in the killing of chickens. Is he or is he not concerned to see that there should be humane killing of chickens as well as of other types of animals?

Mr. Erroll: I cannot speak for my hon. Friend, but I would certainly subscribe to the view that there is an element of skill both in the killing and in the dressing of poultry. But the inspection is of the premises and not of the personnel, and the class of inspector who will be called upon to carry out the inspection will not, in fact, be qualified to say whether or not the slaughterers are themselves skilled, so that the Clauses would not have the effect which the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) hopes for, namely, that of ensuring the humane slaughtering of poultry. They would only lead to the inspection of premises and to a cumbersome procedure for obtaining licences or a renewal of licences which, in our submission, is quite unnecessary.
That brings me to my next point, which is that the need has not been proved. Somebody in Manchester had a bright idea—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and nobody has had the courage to stop it. It is one of the hardest things in the world to stop bright ideas when they happen to be had ideas, and one of the purposes of this House is to stop


bright ideas which are also bad ones. Somebody had the bright idea of licensing all establishments used for the slaughtering of poultry, and no one dared to say that this was a bit of nonsense and another bit of bureaucracy.
If Manchester chooses to inflict upon itself this restrictive licensing system it is inevitably setting the pattern of licensing in this particular field for the rest of the country. We who object to these Clauses are objecting not just on behalf of those Manchester citizens who feel already that this is an unnecessary extension of the licensing system, but on behalf of the whole country.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) speaks for the whole country, but he does not tell us for what section of the whole country. He certainly does not speak for the consumers of poultry. Furthermore, if I may introduce fish into the chicken argument he has dragged red herrings across the trail by suggesting that the case has not been proved. It is not here that the case needs to be proved, but in Committee.
We have here to examine why the Manchester Corporation should put down this Clause. It is not just a bright idea—that is the sort of slick, "smart alec" argument that one associates with the two hon. Gentlemen in all their actions in this House. There is the same good reason for bringing under control the slaughter and dressing of chickens as there was for the case we were making out last night on the Slaughterhouses Bill. Before the war, in the glorious 'twenties, it was the practice for diseased meat and chickens to be sold in every market place.
I raised with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food last night the question of what steps the Government were taking to ensure that where there was bad slaughterhouse practice the local authorities would have power to deal with it. He said that the matter would be dealt with by national legislation, by the introduction of certain standards. A local authority, whether it be Manchester or elsewhere must act if it is aware that as in the past hordes of diseased chickens are being brought within the bounds of the city. In the past

hordes of chickens have been brought in by, I do not doubt, a large number of the constituents of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale. That is why he is here today. And I would not be surprised if a large number came from Eastbourne.
There is no doubt whatever that what I called last night "slick meat" was a terrible problem, but diseased chickens are just as bad. One knows that the modern practices used in raising chickens make them very liable to disease and if the breeders, for whom the hon. Gentleman speaks, suspect that those chickens are diseased the slick thing is to knock them across the head, pull off their feathers, sell them in the nearest town and leave the local authority to discharge the bill. I would never have chicken in a restaurant. I have seen too much of what goes on. May I say that as a result of the Government's food policy as a whole I am not so sure that I shall not become a vegetarian, Certainly, I shall buy no more processed meat or sausages.

Mr. Erroll: May I point out that the provisions of these Clauses would not prevent the operation which the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned? It would still be possible for dead, diseased, chickens to come into Manchester. It is only the slaughtering within the boundaries that would become illegal.

Mr. Wigg: I entirely agree. The hon. Gentleman and his friends are fully aware of the loopholes through which the diseased animals can reach the market. They have obviously worked it out.
We had an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food last night that when the Government become aware of the increase in tuberculosis and other diseases carried by diseased meat they would do something about it. We are trying to prevent these diseased animals coming on the market at all, and the only way is to give the local authority power, within its own boundaries to supervise the dressing of these goods. I would have thought that any hon. Gentleman who is not representing some special interest but is concerned with the public good, not only in Manchester but in the country as a whole, would agree that what Manchester does today the rest of England ought to do tomorrow.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson: The main objection to these Clauses seems to be that they create a precedent. I suggest that the precedent of ensuring adequate sanitary conditions in premises where slaughtering takes place is a good one. This Bill applies to Manchester and not to Eastbourne. Of course, I appreciate that what Manchester does today the rest of England may do tomorrow, but that is beside the point. Much as I value the opinions of my hon. Friends who have already spoken, I respectfully suggest that those of us who have the honour to represent the City of Manchester know rather better than they do what are the needs of Manchester.

Sir C. Taylor: It is one of the duties of all hon. Members of this House to examine these Bills. That is why they come before the House. They do not come before the House only for the consideration of the 'Manchester Members. Surely other Members can examine corporation Bills; otherwise, those Bills would not be brought here.

Mr. Johnson: I accept what my hon. Friend says. I am merely pointing out that the fact that hon. Members who represent the City of Manchester are unanimous in supporting these Clauses should carry a good deal of weight with the House when the Bill is examined. I suggest that those who oppose these Clauses must be inadequately informed about the conditions prevailing in Manchester where the slaughter of poultry is concerned. A considerable trade in poultry is carried on in Manchester. The present safeguards are quite inadequate, and this point of view is shared by all hon. Members who represent the City.

Sir William Darling: Is it the hon. Gentleman's view that Manchester is worse than any other city in this respect?

Mr. Johnson: I did not say anything about Manchester being worse. This is a Manchester Bill, and, in the opinion of the Corporation, the safeguards are most inadequate. The purpose of the three Clauses is to ensure that premises used for the slaughter of poultry are satisfactory and that they are kept in a sanitary condition. I find it very hard to see what possible objection there can be to that. If it is not possible under the

Food and Drugs Act, 1938, to regulate the conditions of premises on which poultry are slaughtered, I feel that steps should be taken to provide the necessary legislation.
I do not want to go into the details about the slaughter of poultry, but there are eight different premises in Manchester which are used for this purpose, on a large scale, and conditions there are far from satisfactory. I do not know whether I should explain some of the methods used in the slaughtering of poultry; I do not want to go into any unpleasant details, but there are many matters which need to be put right, and this can only be done by an adequate system of inspection and of ensuring that the premises are properly kept. There have been innumerable complaints, and we feel that there is every justification for legislation to give power to require that these premises are kept in a more satisfactory condition and to insist that they are regularly and properly inspected.
I suggest that these Clauses are in the best interests of public health. I hope the House will retain them and allow the Bill to go to Committee, where I am sure that the objections which have been raised will receive very full consideration.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I can understand the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) having certain ideas about this matter, because of Eastbourne's lack of propinquity to the City of Manchester, but I thought that Altrincham was near enough to Manchester for the hon. Member who represents that constituency to be able to understand the virtues of the case which Manchester seeks to present through the medium of this Bill. Manchester seeks power to take certain steps to protect the purity, cleanliness and lack of contamination of its food, which may be endangered if the Bill is not passed.
It is surprising that any hon. Member should object to a local authority wanting powers to protect the food of the people. This is not a party issue; it is not brought forward in any narrow partisan spirit. The Manchester City Council unanimously decided to seek these powers. Not only did all the parties in the council approve of the decision, but the Government Departments concerned also indicated their approval.


Both the Home Office and the Ministry of Food have made reference to Clauses 60 to 62 in the reports they have presented in connection with the Bill.
The Home Secretary has stated that, subject to certain Amendments being made—which Amendments have been incorporated in the Bill—he would not wish to object to the form of the Clauses. He recommended that they should be allowed if the promoters could show evidence that these powers were needed in Manchester. The Minister of Food intimated that he understood there was a considerable trade in the slaughter and dressing of poultry in Manchester and said that, subject to the local need for the Clauses being proved, he would not wish to raise any objection to them.
After very careful scrutiny of the powers sought by the city, both Government Departments have come to the conclusion that there is need to protect the purity and lack of contamination of chickens in the City of Manchester. That city is a very large place. It requires these powers not only to protect its own citizens, but to protect the citizens of Eastbourne, who must inevitably visit Manchester. These powers will protect citizens from every part of the country, including those from Altrincham, who come daily to Manchester.
In seeking these powers the Manchester City Council is not acting merely to safeguard the health of its own citizens. It is safeguarding the health and welfare of the citizens of Britain, because Manchester is a great city whither men and women come from all parts of the country and the Empire and the world. Surely the hon. Member for Eastbourne and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) will not wish to be guilty of a grave dereliction of duty in not safeguarding the health of the citizens who go to Manchester from their parts of the world?
No petition was presented to the other place against the Clauses, and no petition against them has been presented to this House, and the time for presenting petitions has expired. I think we should say to hon. Members what is said at the marriage service, that, having said what they have, they should, in the interests of safeguarding the general welfare of the public, henceforward for ever hold their peace.

Mr. Erroll: Mr. Errollrose—

Mr. Lever: I am not giving way.

Sir C. Taylor: Disgusting.

Mr. Erroll: But the hon. Member referred to me.

Mr. Lever: I am not giving way. I am not anxious to assist the arguments of those who are indifferent to the health of the citizens. The Lord Chairman of Committees in another place, who is responsible for reporting on the Measure, has also given authority for these Clauses to proceed.
I think that every fair minded Member concerned with public health must conclude that Manchester Corporation, which is one of the largest and most responsible authorities in the country, in taking this step is taking a step designed to promote the health and welfare of the citizens, and I hope that all hon. Members, irrespective of party, will recognise the need to give Manchester these powers for the health and betterment not only of the citizens of Manchester but of those who visit it.

Sir C. Taylor: Coming from such a salubrious place as Eastbourne, I had not realised until now, and hearing hon. Members from Manchester, what insanitary conditions prevail in Manchester.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Order. The hon. Member has spoken once already.

Sir C. Taylor: Therefore, I do hope that the Committee upstairs will take note of my remarks about Clause 62, and I beg to ask leave—

Mr. H. Lever: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member entitled to elaborate his request to withdraw his Motion, if he proposes to ask leave to withdraw his Motion?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot make a second speech without the leave of the House.

Sir C. Taylor: I was not thinking of making a second speech—

Mr. H. Lever: The hon. Member is making a third speech.

Sir C. Taylor: —and was just coming to the point that I now reach. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Newent [copy presented 15th June] approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Newark-onTrent [copy presented 15th June] approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending

Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Denby Dale [copy presented 15th June] approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Think [copy presented 17th June] approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Studholme.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Five Minutes past Ten o'Clock.